I posted this comment on Tim O’Reilly’s site. Just a few thoughts on why 2.0
web 1.0 – content produced by someone else
web 2.0 – content produced by the user
web 1.0 – architecture of consumption
web 2.0 – architecture of partipation
web 1.0 – attempts to create walled gardens
web 2.0 – building value through open fields
web 1.0 – download culture
web 2.0 – remix culture
web 1.0 – read only
web 2.0 – read/write (this one was stolen, can’t remember who from… sorry)
P2P as “hype” was an inflexion point.
Talking of hype – I don’t agree with some of the folks saying AJAX and Web 2.0 are somehow improper terms.
I said this over at lesscode this morning:
Its a fashion industry, folks, whether the engineer inside likes it or not. Say what you want about AJAX, who invented it, or whatever. But you can’t deny the energy and outcomes the idea has generated. Full credit to adaptive path. Talk about a thousand flowers. So what if MS put forward the technology initially. What matters is how we use technology. There is nothing new in IT (danny sabbah).
Remember the file and print revolution? That was a revolution of language, as much as technology. Language created a context for things to get done. “Oh that’s what you mean” – that is a great idea. An entire community of third parties, a powerful new vendor, Novell, later displaced by Microsoft, a whole new way of thinking about delivering services to end-users… that end users and lines of business could understand. Language holds communities together and in effect creates possible outcomes.
The technology industry is an ongoing, ever evolving and mutating battle of ideas, and memes like Web 2.0 carry powerful payloads.
I will fight for my right to remix.
I believe in loosely coupled services.
I believe that DRM adds nothing to the customer experience.
I believe in open metadata.
Web 2.0 is a manifesto not a technology.