Note: You are experiencing only the raw content of this site, without the intended layout and design. Either your browser has ignored the Cascading Style Sheet (CSS) files for this site, or you are using an outdated browser which does not support Web Standards. Learn more.

EDS' Next Big Thing Blog: Read and Respond to What the EDS Fellows Say About Technology

Read and respond to what the EDS Fellows have to say about the future of technology on EDS' Next Big Thing Blog on eds.com.

Is web 2.0 all it is cracked up to be?

by Charlie Bess

Earlier this year, O'Reilly Publishing and MediaLive International created the term web 2.0, when they were brainstorming conference ideas. Since then there has been this manic adoption of the term for nearly anything interesting or new on the web. It appears to be more of a response to the .com bust perspective, shaking their finger and pointing out the relevance of the "new" web. Other than a few people, most would say the web is relevant and useful, as Mark Twain said "Rumors of my death has been greatly exaggerated."

Most of the things I see listed as Web 2.0 appear to be incremental improvements and not the radical changes that will be coming to more of a context computing approach, based on location, role, time, function ...

I have to agree with this article that it is the data and the interaction between the users that makes the current web 2.0 important, much more than a bunch of software architecture patterns and new development/deployment techniques.

As we move into 2006, it appears that many people are trying to leave the term "Web 2.0" behind.

What do you think - has it outlived its usefulness? What change are we actually trying to convey?

Published Wednesday, January 04, 2006 2:16 PM

Subscribe to this post's comments using RSS

Comments

Posted by Paul Renner Wednesday, January 04, 2006 7:57 PM

Web 1.0 was the necessary baby-step of platform-agnostic (mostly) interconnectivity. Its ultimate goal was realized when simple browsing evolved into the ability to transact business. In my view, Web 2.0 builds upon the now robust communications infrastructure of version 1.0 to change the paradigm. The Web is no longer the network of inerconnected computers. In version 2.0, the Web has BECOME the computer. As Google will soon demonstrate by selling an internet appliance at Wal-Mart, the oft prophecied thin client will go mainstream. The end user of the Google-Wally PC will have to learn why their "PC" won't do anything if their internet connection is down. That's because everything we used to do with our PCs - email, word processing, checkbook balancing, gaming, you name it, are now services on Web 2.0. They won't care about your operating system, or how large your hard drive is. All you will have to have is a minimal piece of hardware, capable of web browsing (HTML, XML, Java, AJAX), and user input (a keyboard, mouse, microphone, and camera). Security will be taken out of the hands of the end user (for their own good), and system/performance/capacity upgrades will be the responsibility of the service provider.

I think this is what Web 2.0 is meant to convey. And no, I don't think it has outlived its usefulness. I believe it has only just begun.

Posted by Andy Reitz Wednesday, January 04, 2006 9:48 PM

I will let Paul Graham speak for me -- he can do so far more intelligently and eloquently than I can:

http://www.paulgraham.com/web20.html

-Andy.