Weblog

Jun 2, 04:16 am: Web 1.0 to web 2.0

A very nice list of how web 2.0 and 1.0 are different. There’s some money in the comments, particularly Marc Smolev. Marc starts by writing, “Web 2.0 is only about renaming and making ‘old thing’ easier, not about ‘brand new thing!’.” That, in and of itself, isn’t a new sentiment. I’ve sat, with wine and friends, listening to the same thing. And you know what? I think it’s bullshit. Sure, maybe it isn’t innovation in the same way hyperlinks were innovation but let’s be honest: how many times are you going to get that? It really does count that people can upload pictures with a right click and that they can write to the web easily. All kinds of people can do this. And they are (check out Andy Carvin’s nice piece on the recent Pew report).

That really is the essence of web 2.0. It’s made what was always possible easy and encouraged adoption. It’s that adoption that will make the real potential, and the next innovation, happen.

(via www.darrenbarefoot.com)

tagged: , , , ,

Marnie Webb  | 

Comments made

  1. John (Uneasy Rhetoric)

    Okay, I’ll admit it, I’m one of those people going around quoting from an earlier post here that Web 2.0 is about “rounded corners and different fonts.”

    Hey, in the software world, the difference between major integer releases frequently isn’t even as bold as that. I like the list Carvin has, and I think your definition sums it up nicely.

    Although I’ve often also said that Web 2.0 is about voluntarily giving up one’s privacy. Everything has a dark underside, I suppose.


    Jun 2, 04:40 pm

  2. John (Uneasy Rhetoric)

    Oops. I didn’t mean Carvin. I meant the Copacetic via Darren list. My bad. Although Carvin’s bit was interesting too.


    Jun 2, 05:23 pm