Comments on: What is Web 2.0, anyway?

By: Remarkk! » Banning “Web 2.0″ from my Vocabulary

Remarkk! » Banning “Web 2.0″ from my Vocabulary — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 06:00:14 +0000

[...] Time to retire a tired old horse. I expressed my doubts about “Web 2.0” as a useful label in my very first serious blog post on remarkk.com back in March 2006. I was both pleased and surprised when Shel Israel picked it up at the time. After attending the Lift Conference, I must now return to that question with a stronger conclusion. [...]

By: Jon Paul Janze

Jon Paul Janze — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 05:38:27 +0000

Web 2.0 represents a new shift in the usefulness of the internet and internet applications. It is not revolutionary moment in time marked by a particular event or product launch; rather it is an evolution marked more by the dogged efforts of many individuals and groups across the internet to make it BETTER.

Donâ€™t get me wrong web 1.0 is still around and will be for much longer, it’s just that web 2.0 is finally hitting the mainstream.

Most mainstream users won’t know they are now ‘web 2.0 enabled’, they will just eventually figure out that what they are doing is now ‘easier, faster, better’ or that some new functionality is now available, some creative new idea has finally landed.

For more, checkout http://www.harostreetmedia.com/node/24

By: Remarkk! » iSummit Wrap-up

Remarkk! » iSummit Wrap-up — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 08:33:18 +0000

[...] And for anyone working in the digital media space, you must understand the Web 2.0 phenomenon. You have a fantastic opportunity with the mesh conference in Toronto May 15/16. The speaker list is impressive, and it is setting up to be a major event, which will also be hosted at our favourite innovation hub, MaRS. [...]

By: Thomas Purves » Web 2.0 is Crap and Other viable business models in the 21st century

Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:31:43 +0000

[...] The intent of this blog is to cast a critical eye on Web 2.0 (itself an awkward name for an ill-defined farago of, at best, loosely related ideas of varying merit â€“ but that’s a whole other post ) as well as the related memes from cluetrain, hughtrain, purplecows, long and short tails, attention/intention economies and whatever else gets the blogosphere buzing next week . [...]

By: Remarkk! » [mesh]: The Economics of Ideas

Remarkk! » [mesh]: The Economics of Ideas — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 02:48:27 +0000

[...] The community has been discussing, Can we rename Web 2.0? (I vote for “The Social Web”). We’ve asked “What is Web 2.0?” But have we really asked “Why Web 2.0?“. To what end are we innovating? In order to understand Web 2.0 and its impact on society and business, I believe we must discover and understand the political economy of Web 2.0. There is an internal logic at work, and it is operating inside and in relation to pre-existing institutional and economic structures. [...]

By: Remarkk! » Rick Segal: “Memo to BigCo, Shut Up”

Remarkk! » Rick Segal: “Memo to BigCo, Shut Up” — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 07:04:07 +0000

[...] I’ve been exploring these themes a lot lately (here & here), but I sure don’t have it figured it out yet. It has something to do with the tension between network economics and the desire of capital to internalize the market. Web 2.0 and Capital may be a paradox, or they may present a new kind of arbitrage opportunity. More on this later… [...]

By: Alan Gutierrez

Alan Gutierrez — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 06:59:30 +0000

Hmm…

I’m getting people started with blogging in New Orleans and most of Web 2.0 is lost on them. That is the applications that are on the who’s who lists.

They get the concepts of Google Juice and they get the idea of linking and comments.

The linking is a bit of magic. It’s a way to get the attention of another blogger in a passive fashion. You begin the conversation with a gift of Google juice, a trackback if they want it.

This may be an aspect of disintermediation, or as they used to say “cutting out the middle-man”, but I think it’s one of the revolutions that we take for granted.

By: Mark Kuznicki

Mark Kuznicki — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 17:33:14 +0000

Alan and Andrew,

To clarifiy, I don’t think “disintermediation” works as a word to replace Web 2.0. It’s not very brand friendly, as Andrew points out. But that is the essential result of the phenomenon that we now call Web 2.0.

I am at a loss for a better word, but I note Shel’s latest idea in the comments of his original post is the “web marketplace”. Maybe the “social web”, where users are brought together and the technology tries to get out of the way of their interaction.

I will be highlighting some sites that illustrate my point that Web 2.0 is about disintermediation in future posts.

Thanks for your comments.

By: Andrew Denny

Andrew Denny — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 12:18:18 +0000

Hmm, it took most of my family and friends years just to understand the phrase ‘user friendly’. I suspect non-geeks will never even be able to pronounce ‘disintermediation’, let alone spell it!

By: Alan Gutierrez

Alan Gutierrez — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 01:45:31 +0000

The word for the post is disintermediation, which is a key component of syndication.

When people disuss Web 2.0, it seems necessary for them to include JavaScript and dynamic HTML, aka Ajax, in the definition. Can you have Web 2.0 with a pure REST architecture?

Kinda. I don’t think you need Asynchonous Javascript, nor XML. You do need some scripting. It has to do with the security built into browsers. Your disintermediation is blocked by standard browser security.

A key component of many Web 2.0 applications is a bookmarklet. I have a few. I use the “Press It!” bookmarklet to blog things, coComment to record my comments, and the del.icio.us extension to take bookmarks.

The del.icoi.us bookmarklet is an example of a bookmarklet that simply gets you to a web form. They web form may have JavaScript controls, but it’s a good old fashioned POST and redirect.

That’s the thought that your post sparked, although it is a tangent. I like the thoughts here though. Please punch it up with some posts of sites or applications that exemplify your thoughts.