Slashdot Mirror


Web 2.0 As A New Wave of Innovation?

Vitaly Friedman writes "In his article in the recent Educause magazine, Bryan Alexander, Director for Research at the National Institute for Technology and Liberal Education (NITLE), presents a comprehensive analysis of the rising web 2.0 companies and describes the emerging of web 2.0. From the article: ' ... larger players have entered the field, most notably Yahoo, which has been buying up many projects, including Flickr and del.icio.us. Microsoft is considering a massive extension of RSS. And Google has been producing its own projects, such as the Lens RSS reader and Google Maps. Meanwhile, academic implementations are bubbling up, like the social bookmarking and search projects noted earlier. This Web 2.0 movement (or movements) may not supplant Web 1.0, but it has clearly transformed a significant swath of our networked information ecology.'"

28 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. So... by 0racle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'Web 2.0' is just a bunch of wikis and people pretending to be important right?

    --
    "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    1. Re:So... by digitallife · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was just about to post 'So what IS Web 2.0??'. You put it better.

      Honestly I have read 'Web 2.0' too many tme recently on /., and am starting to get tired of hearing about it. Yay, people figured out how to make websites interactive. Let's move on.

    2. Re:So... by NevDull · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, it's about using the masses as a decentralized classification system.

    3. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The mouthbreathers are just amalgamating a bunch of evident phenomenon with a self-aggrandizing choice of terms, "Web 2.0". Let's take an honest look at what really makes up "Web 2.0" for one moment, if you will. I'll try to resist my scathing sense of humour, but I can't promise anything.

      What is Web 2.0?

      To the businessman, perhaps it is rounded corners effected with CSS or a bunch of grandiose words chosen due to their presence in a thesaurus. To the critical "veteran" developer, it may seem to be a bunch of nonsense or some unneeded neologism that is making much of nothing. Well, the most heartfelt descriptions I hear from Web 2.0 advocates on what it is to be Web 2.0 seem to maintain one tagline: Web 2.0 is live online collaboration and sharing (occasionally "real-time" is thrown in there somewhere, too).

      What exactly is that supposed to mean? The earliest messageboards represent "live collaboration and sharing". Web-based "chat sites" are well represented by the summary "live collaboration and sharing" (with "real-time" thrown in there somewhere, even!). This point is utterly moot. The most bold marketing point chosen by Web 2.0 advocates is a complete straw man designed to peak the curiosity of inexperienced entrepreneurs and businessfolk.

      The technology empowering "Web 2.0", as repeatedly rehashed on your own Slashdot, is a non-standard mesh of previously existing technology. We have corporations and even the "little guy" running around trying to impress with a buzzword when nobody can even *really* agree on its meaning! Does the use of AJAX instantly define a website as Web 2.0? Does text enclosed in div elements defined to have rounded corners for a style make a website 2.0? To what extent must AJAX be employed to reach the "Web 2.0" checkered finishing line?

      In the world of buzzwords, many of us developers have been slapped in the face without even realizing it yet. This is 1999's "dot bomb" all over again. We are actually prescribing to the theory that there even is a "Web 2.0" and are desperately struggling to comply with something totally intangible! I've listened to rants by developers claiming that even the most mundane sites, "MySpace", "youtube", "plentyoffish", even "eBay", are apparently "Web 2.0". This, I do not fucking understand. These are all popular websites with some successful gimmicks, sure. They are all VERY successful financially, however, I am almost being led to believe that our latest incarnation of "Web 2.0" is that it is merely an insubstancial "glittery star sticker" being placed on even moderately successful cash-cow websites. "For the same low price, now with twice more Web 2.0!". It's amazing the kind of crackpot bullshit we're forced to listen to every time an article like this comes up. As a long-time software (and web) developer and self-made entrepreneur, I find this utterly reprehensible.

      As an aside, I was doing some drywall work in a house I'm renting out the other day when I chuckled, paying special attention to the smooth rounded corners I had to dig out of the drywall in order to fit the sheet around an electrical box in the place's ceiling. I would have to guess that I've made that drywall pretty fucking Web 2.0. Scribble some goddamned JavaScript on the roof in pencil and bam, I'd have a world-class enterprise configuration empowering corporations and live collaboration, stuck full of synergy and all that jazz.

  2. Nooooo! by suv4x4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm having nightmares already. Web 2 keeps "rising" like a friggin' zombie every few days.

    It rised when people said Java applets were so Web 2, then it rised again when blogs and RSS was so Web 2, then it rised again when Google made JS interaction popular (again), a bit later it rised again when a marketing company coined the term for what Google does "AJAX", then again with Flickr, YouTube, Digg and so on, and I'm telling you I'm already sick of the damn Web 2.0.

    Do you know what happens with too much buzz and hype? You let people down and make them sick up to their necks. I hate the damn Web 2.0 and have no idea what THE HECK it is anymore.

    And I'm a web developer, let alone businessmen and the casual Internet surfer.

    1. Re:Nooooo! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Web 2 keeps "rising" like a friggin' zombie every few days.

      I love zombies. Just brain them and they fall over. So the next time someone mentions "Web 2.0" and whatever new technology of the day in the same breath, just whack 'em in the head and move along.

    2. Re:Nooooo! by LordLucless · · Score: 3, Informative

      Past tense of "rise" is "rose". I usually don't bother correcting grammar on Slashdot, but you used it so many times I figured it was worth it.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    3. Re:Nooooo! by cyberon22 · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're prescriptivist grammar pedanticism are really making my blood boils. It is rise my hackles to a new levels of!

      Actually, I thought at first you were arguing over whether the past participle is "risen" or "rose". So I went back and read the parent post.... Yup. Pretty amazing display of illiteracy, that....

  3. No by sulli · · Score: 5, Funny
    it is a new wave 2.0 of innovation 2.0.

    With twice the self importance of the original!

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
    1. Re:No by NevDull · · Score: 4, Funny

      Can I get stock options 2.0 for bubble 2.0? I'm in on this go-'round early enough to cash out before crash 2.0.

  4. And so by binkzz · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Microsoft is considering a massive extension of RSS"

    Listen to the sound of my voice. Inhale deeply, put your arms in a circle and say "Embraaaace", then exhale slowly pushing your arms out and say "Exteeeend".

    --
    'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
  5. Watch out though... by LandownEyes · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's all goes downhill once we reach Web 98.

  6. A hack of a hack of a hack... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...how much crap can they pile onto what was designed as document viewer before the whole thing implodes?

    Give the browser a break people! It's seen enough abuse!

  7. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Speaking as a 'real software engineer' who writes 'real software', web developers have always been looked down upon has untalented hacks. I think with the Web maturing as an application platform we are seeing quite a bit of indignant snobbery from traditional engineers.

    Although I still use my traditional desktop for heavy duty computational tasks in the graphics/physics area, I have been noticing that I feel the need for a traditional desktop less and less each month as Web applications keep getting better and better. I can certainly see myself relegating my workstation to only my specific work tasks and almost all of the rest of my daily computing tasks being done through cellphones/PDAs/PSPs outside/on the road and at with web browsers in my living room on my PS3.

    Go try out some Web 2.0 tutorials(or whatever you want to call the set of technologies) to see for yourself. Despite the hype there is some serious good stuff going on.

    1. Re:Yes by fermion · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I couldn't agree with you more. One of the reasons that IE took control of the browser market was because it was tied to the MS Windows API and therefore could easily act as an application interface, where more standard complient browsers could not. This meant that untrained persons could write usable interfaces using the IE framework.

      With the techniques developed over the past few years, we now have the capability to do what IE could do, but in a standard complient way that is generally more stable. It makes web applications that were nearly unusable, even in IE, become practical. A second innovation is moving beyond the web browser. Application like Google earth and Apple Dashboard applies general standards to specific OS. The front end is specilized, but the back end does not need to be.In fact this takes us back 20 years to the happy time when one could log into any service using any computer, with the modification that we now use a GUI instead of kermit.

      Some naysayers may say this is dangerous because not everyone has an internet connection everywhere. Well, in the early 80's everyone said it was dangerous becuase everyone did not have a modem, but we all got one. Then in the 90's the internet was dangerous because it was sometimes hard to get a dialup line. Now, we are in situation where the telcos are trying to limit this commodity product that is bandwidth, and have even manage to reduce the availability of honest to goodness DSL by denying compition. The best way to break this nonsense to make wireless broadband as neccesary as radio, then have the common person complain continuously until we arrive at a solution. This is basically what broke the long distance nonsense. Kiddos, remember, there was a time when calling your neighbor cost tens of dolalrs an hour.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  8. networked information ecology by linvir · · Score: 3, Interesting
    networked information ecology
    Reminded me of a hilarious advert on UK television a while back. It used to make me laugh so much that I can't remember who it was about or what they were selling, but basically it had loads of mundane stuff like meetings and presentations, only it all took place about 100m in the air above a city, and businesspeople were somersaulting into their chairs, and throwing their notes over their heads to be caught by a guy on a motorbike who sped them away. It was something to do with "the digital network economy", and was basically a perfect visual representation of hype.

    Making the link between this and my views on Web 2.0 As A New Wave of Innovation is a task left to the reader. No points will be awarded for answering this question.

    1. Re:networked information ecology by Psychotext · · Score: 3, Informative

      It was a BT advert, and it was, as you described; terrible. Full of absolutely meaningless buzzwords and general innacuracies.

      --
      People that believe in their opinions don't post AC.
  9. I hope you... by tfcdesign · · Score: 3, Funny

    paid for the right to use "Web 2.0".

  10. It's official by TrappedByMyself · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IT and specifically web development is so big that a big chunk of the "techies" are now idiots. It started when the business guys who could hack HTML started calling themselves geeks, but the journey ends here.

    This Web 2.0 movement (or movements) may not supplant Web 1.0

    I remember PHBs saying equally ridiculous things about XML when it came out, how it would revolutionize the world and everything would magically talk to each other. Now we see people in all groups saying the same thing about 6 year old tech... oh, I mean, Web 2.0

    So, um, can anyone tell me how HTML, JavaScript, and Stylesheets supplants, um...., HTML, JavaScript, and Stylesheets?

    --

    Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
    1. Re:It's official by suv4x4 · · Score: 4, Funny

      So, um, can anyone tell me how HTML, JavaScript, and Stylesheets supplants, um...., HTML, JavaScript, and Stylesheets?

      Asynchronous JavaScript and XML is being replaced by AJAX. It's totally new.

  11. What is this bizarre compulsion? by starfishsystems · · Score: 3, Insightful
    What is this bizarre compulsion to brand a random selection of software development activities as if they were all key elements of some elaborate Master Plan? Isn't the work interesting enough in itself without the hyperbole of trying to turn it into some new kind of Klondike?

    It's as stupid in its way as people "discovering" the Internet a few years ago. In their haste to stake claims all over it, they neglected to notice that it was actually a set of artifacts created, with considerable effort, by people who came before them.

    And didn't we hear this once already with something called Web Services? Let's transport everything over Port 80, that's really innovative. If we must call it anything, let's call it Hubris 2.0. Maybe, like Madonna, it will eventually go away if we just ignore it.

    --
    Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
  12. MS(TM) RSS(TM) by wirefarm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Microsoft is considering a massive extension of RSS. "

    Let me guess, this will be a new Windows-only binary format that will have the ability to execute code.

    Dear Microsoft,

    Please keep in mind that that middle "S" stands for "simple".

    --
    -- My Weblog.
  13. "Web 2.0" by chrisbeach · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Bubble 2.0," anyone?

  14. Maybe O'Reilly was trying to save us? by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You know the other week when we were all down with O'Reilly trying to patent/copyright/whatever "Web 2.0", well, perhaps they were just trying to save us from all this hype over nothing. I mean, if we had just accepted that "Web 2.0" was now owned by O'Reilly and we couldn't even mention it's name, we'd be free of TFA. All of them. Whilst, in every other sense, the web would develop as it is now. We just wouldn't be subjected to all this articles _about_ Web 2.0!!

    All hail O'Reilly -- they tried to save us but we wouldn't listen! :D

  15. slogan by MrSquirrel · · Score: 3, Funny

    Web 2.0: even more porn!

    --
    A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
  16. Re:Web 2.0 is so 2005 by kfg · · Score: 3, Funny

    There will be no Web 3.0. Instead there will be Web 2.0-2.0, which will be known to the memeosphere as Web Squared. It'll be hip to be Squared.

    KFG

  17. Ajax isn't always better by Twillerror · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Funny that Web 2.0 is taking off so much. The problem with it is that everyone I interview is now "learning" Ajax. I feel like if I go to an interview I'll be asked a million Ajax questions, that I really don't want to answer.

    Using hidden Iframes and JScript was one way to do what Ajax does years ago. There are definately a few cases where it is really useful. A little div popup, pre-populating city state after a postal code was entered, testing a value etc. Debugging is much harder, and the Javascript/DOM model is hard to code bug free. Javascript errors don't get reported to the server admin, and they are often hard to replicate. This is partly a lack of good tools, but view source on HTML is almost always easier then trying to step thru some buggy jscript.

    It can be very easy to abuse Ajax. I recently had someone show me a search example that "pre-populated" as you typed. It was super clunky and really didn't work. Ajax's biggest problem at this point is that everyone thinksd everything has to be instant now. You can make a user go to another page to edit something that is not edited every other minute.

    As much as I love Google maps, Yahoo Flash maps kick their ass. Adobe's new Flex tech is really going to give Ajax a run for the money. Java is just to sluggish, but Flash is pretty quick. Yes you'll have to turn off your flash ad blockers.

    The thing that has to happen is that SVG or a new standard needs to be born to handle GUI apps. People don't like flash because there is a name behind it, HTML is a standard, Javascript is a standard, etc. Java is Sun/IBM, Flash is Adobe ( formally Macromedia ).

    Personally I would love to see an HTML 5.0....A pure XML based HTML is great, but pretty impractical given the huge amount of content that doesn't have the
      tag, and just have
      tags, etc. WTH did no one think to have a tag? Now I'm stuck with a million different Javascript/UL combos out there. Even adding a target to div would be great. Imagine a that would turn on a div and tell the browser to turn it on. With some style sheet properties you could make some powerful divs without code.

    I guess my biggest gripe with Web 2.0 is that almost everything that we spend hours figuring out in JScript could be done if people would create more and better HTML tags. Then the browser developers take care of all the testing, and we will have more stable apps.

    Personally I'm going down the Flash path. If you haven't tried Flex yet, labs.adobe.com, do yourself a favor and see what you've been missing....no I don't work for Adboe or even really like them :)
    You can do more in less time, and you can create content that really looks good. I'd love to see a Flex slashdot version.

  18. Web 2.0 is about experience not implementation by gigahawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It would be typical with a forum full of engineers to simply pass up web 2.0 as some marketing buzzword for a new implementation of something old. In many ways the attributes associated with what is being collectively called 'web 2.0' are simply old ideas implemented in a medium where they can succeed in a big way.

    It's important to understand that the difference in the web is not in the implementation but in the experience of the end user and how content is created, managed, and distributed. Adaptive path has a writeup about this at http://adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/archiv es/000547.php

    The difference is important because it changes how developers and designers percieve the web when they are creating new things. There are many features of newer web software that contribute to the ways in which people use and experience the web.

    My favorite is the preference in designing software for the long tail. Which is mentioned in Wired http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html This is the practice of serving many niche markets with targeted software instead of building software to service all of the market and doing it badly. This causes less confusion, less clutter, better software and faster turnaround.

    Some of the other features of the newer web software you might have already noticed are decentralization, remixability, co-creation, and their side-effect of emergent systems. Web services, niche software and the network effect all make these things much more feasible than they have been in the past since there are well defined frameworks for distributing services that are easy to work with and adding more niche services increases the value of all web software by a large amount.

    Notice I didn't say AJAX or Ruby on Rails or Django or [insert your new framework or technology here]. These are merely details of implementation. If a framework makes your company faster then that's good. If a technology lets your user's client fetch web service data for them, that can also be good. These things are only technologies used to reach an end product. Web 2.0 could have been done in many languages and frameworks and on many platforms. That's not to say that certain languages, frameworks, etc. didn't have an effect on the design of the software, as any language or framework has a certain effect on the overall style of the developers using it.

    This was about a need for developers and designers to move beyond what was status quo for interaction between websites and their users. They are taking full advantage of the tools they have created and the network that was built up over the past few decades. To belittle their efforts into something meaningless is to surely miss the entire point.