There has been a predictable backlash against “Web 2.0″ as a meaningful movement (above and beyond a set of technologies). In response, I present here a short case in favour of Web 2.0 — what (I think) it means, what (I think) it’s made of, and the very real difference it can make when fully embraced.
Let me begin with a brief introduction to our company. We’ve been going since 1998, and have two core strands: as a developer of software products (a software vendor), and a web consultancy (designing and implementing web solutions). Our most recent product (clickdensity) is what I’d describe as Web 2.0 — I’ll come to my definition shortly.
Although Web 2.0 software is only a part of what we do, the development of a Web 2.0 product has prompted a dramatic culture-shift in our entire organization; from the way we recruit and pitch for work, to the day-to-day management and delivery of projects. A few weeks after launching the product, the number of developer applicants had shot up by 800%.
So, why is this? What are the characteristics of “Web 2.0″ that allow it to permeate through the keyboard and monitor, from technology to society?
I’ll start with some sentimental definitions, before we get analytical:
Web 1.0 was from the head; Web 2.0 is from the heart.
Or, similarly:
Web 1.0 was created by Scientists; Web 2.0 was created by Society.
What I’m trying to get across is that Web 2.0 is a more ‘real’ Web — an honest, transparent world where people make things that they think are useful for other people, problems are discussed openly, and business models come second to user models (not always a good thing, of course).
This paradigm-shift has obviously been initiated by the consumer (you and me), rather than strategically deployed by commercial organisations and technology vendors.
It signifies a drastic shift from a closed, data-hoarding, product-based online society, where the web was a restricted medium for conducting limited business. Web 2.0 has evolved into an open, trusting, service-based society which provides a unique platform for developing new ways of working.
Benefits of Embracing Web 2.0
The central tenet of Web 2.0 - adopting the web as a unique development platform (rather than just another ‘medium’ for conducting traditional business) - has inherent advantages: it is a low-cost, global, meritocratic environment, where marketing dollars cannot be used to drown out the little guy.
A number of additional high-value benefits are also apparent to adopters of Web 2.0 practices:
- Recruitment. Due to the cutting-edge underlying technologies and usability-focused interfaces (the ‘cool’ factor), organisations adopting Web 2.0 tend to attract sophisticated, high-calibre technical candidates.
- Search Engine Optimisation (SEO). Web 2.0 delivery mechanisms - such as blogs and RSS (the ‘blogosphere’) - significantly enhance search engine exposure through the distributed nature of RSS, the likelihood of attracting niche keywords in the volume of blogs, and the quantity/periodicity of content.
- Marketing/PR. By taking advantage of the aforementioned benefits, marketing and PR teams can implement low-cost, wide-coverage, viral strategies.
- Loyalty. The open, participatory Web 2.0 environment encourages user contribution and ‘buy-in’, enhancing customer loyalty and lifespan.
- Reduced cost. Not only are Web 2.0 offerings low-cost, but the same techniques can also be applied to existing (non-Web 2.0) products and services, lowering costs. For example, wikis can enable your users to build documentation and knowledge base systems, with relatively little investment from yourself.
- User requirements/Improved offerings. Blogs, wikis and other Web 2.0 mechanisms empower your users to communicate and contribute, enabling you to develop truly market-led (and in turn, market-leading) services and products.
- Scalability. Without getting into the pros/cons of specific programming languages, Web 2.0 services tend to be delivered through websites (rather than packaged software or individual downloads), allowing the services to easily scale through hardware infrastructure. Patching and upgrades also need to be applied only once (at the host), rather than having to roll them out to individuals in your user base.
These are just my initial thoughts on why I personally believe in Web 2.0. In keeping with the theme, I thought I’d release them early to you (this is a beta blog), rather than waiting until they were fully polished and cohesive. As usual, I welcome any comments below - let me know if you’re a believer, a critic, or you just couldn’t care less.
Wow! This is REALLY cool, Dan. Still absorbing, but its definitely got me thinking.
Thanks!
Dan,
There's backlash where business models are challenged but I can assure you people are taking note in even the most conservative of organizations.
I would like to hear your opinion on portals. I believe web 2.0 makes them more irrelevant. (by portal I mean a webified desktop where company "x" provides all the aggregation in a very brand centric controlled env).
Taylor
What good is "web 2.0" if the term is constantly being abused?
I guess many people have issues with the term, not with what it "really" stands for.
After all, many people call myspace a "web 2.0" app. Dudes, it's just homepages, these have been around for years.
It's nice that in your opinion, "web 2.0" means "business models come second to user models".
Unfortunately, to other it means "business comes first, doing something really different than before comes second". And to others it's all about ajax.
I strongly discourage the use of the term "web 2.0" except for referring to marketing buzz. If you're talking about the "real web 2.0", use other terms such as Open APIs, syndiction, user content, semantics.
We need to find a more describing term such as "open web".
Oh, and you're missing a key ingredient: "beta". Is there any web 2.0 page not bearing the beta logo? Check out http://www.drweb.de/weblog/weblog/?p=518
and they all employ a very similar design...
@Erich,
You're arguing preference of terms? What is your plan if we were all to adopt "open web", and then everyone starts calling their MySpace home page "open web compatible"? You realize thats exactly what would happen, right?
No matter what the term happens to be, its going to be abused... That's just the way it works.
>> Oh, and you're missing a key ingredient: "beta".
??? What does the content of Dan's post and beta software have to do with each other?
You seem annoyed by the term, and that's fine... We all are to some extent > http://www.xsltblog.com/archives/2005/08/web_10_20_30_ea.html < but the term is here to stay, because there is money behind the term.
If you can find people who are willing to fund product development using the term "open web" then you might have a chance at getting it to stick. Just don't be pissed off when the first MySpace user references his home page using "open web."
It's funny that we, in Spain, are using the "web2.love" badge to express such thing: www.webdospuntoamor.com
:-)
Never stand in front of a speeding truck load of money.
Going from a decentralized system back to a centralized system via server-side aggregation didn't take long did it? The evolution of such things is exactly the opposite of what the technology suggests. Once a winner in any content market emerges, a basin is formed that cancels out the emergence of small attractors. It is not permanent but it has a life cycle and that lifecycle is agnostic to the qualities you list and easily gamed just as the tensor indexing algorithms applied by Google are easily gamed.
How long did it take iTunes to close the doors to the independants?
It doesn't mean one shouldn't compete. It means one shouldn't be seduced into forgetting to do exactly that.
Hi,Dan,
Without doubt, the noun of "web 2.0" has led so many innovations on the web, it really deserves everyone's attention. But I'm rather upset about the foundation or presumption on which you have to rely to run a social system, i.e. the Critical Mass. Of course, not every web site could manage to get enough users and information posts to get things up.
One more presumption web 2.0 systems rely upon is Trust. Keep it open to everybody, and trust them for building nice social content. It's OK, it's interesting, but it's not reliable for any serious business. Spams, trolling, gaming, several gurus to control the entire community. All these make you gradually lose the confidence to just trust everyone, especially after your system grew up. How about Not Trust? Even worse, you would never reach the Critical Mass to grow up.
I'm simply lost in Web 2.0
Sun Yu
Is Web 3.0 real? would be coined by O'reilly Media like web 2.0?
Mark
www.freephptemplate.com