The Joel on Software Discussion Group (CLOSED)

A place to discuss Joel on Software. Now closed.

This community works best when people use their real names. Please register for a free account.

Other Groups:
Joel on Software
Business of Software
Design of Software (CLOSED)
.NET Questions (CLOSED)
Fog Creek Copilot

The Old Forum

Your hosts:
Albert D. Kallal
Li-Fan Chen
Stephen Jones

Future of Web Apps Summit


Is anybody here planning on going to this on Wednesday?
Colm O'Connor Send private email
Saturday, February 04, 2006
I'm supposed to be going.
John Topley Send private email
Saturday, February 04, 2006
The proliferation of a non thing by repeating its non descriptive name.  Web 2.0, feh.
Simon Lucy Send private email
Sunday, February 05, 2006
It's interesting how 6 months ago web 2.0 was all the rage. Now the backlash against it is even funnier because a few honest, smart people wrote negative articles popping the illusiory ballon surrounding it, now all the bandwagon jumpers who were touting it are now negative on it.
Horton Hears a Who
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Yeah, I'm equally skeptical about the backlash. It's the same cranky "seen-it-all-before" crowd that reared their head to denounce Java back in 1998 (remember "just another vague acronym?").
Colm O'Connor Send private email
Sunday, February 05, 2006
I'm one of the people denouncing web 2.0; now let me tell you why.

The Web 1.0 bubble was defined as the New Economy--the Amazons would replace the brick and mortar stores.  We would order our groceries online as well as everything else.  Actually, we wouldn't--our Internet-connected fridge would call the Webvan site and order more milk.  Or something.

The point is that Web 1.0 had a clear definition, and that you could focus your attacks on the 'New Economy'.

Web 2.0 is defined as ... well, no one's been able to define it.  In lieu of a proper definition, we're instead choosing to define Web 2.0 by cherrypicking sites that exemplify...whatever it is Web 2.0 is...apparently we'll figure that out later.  Every time you see an article about Web 2.0, you'll see mention of Google Maps, GMail, Flickr, delicious... [dots added postfix -ed], or some other site that we all agree is an excellent web site. The articles will mention AJAX, but if they're honest they'll admit it's not necessarily a new technology nor idea.  Outside of AJAX there's nothing concrete you can stake to Web 2.0. 

It's my theory that Web 2.0 can be simply defined as "good new web sites, plus media hype".  I don't know if they're doing this intentionally, or if they're just so excited about the possibilities of everything, you know, working properly, that they just sort of skip over Web 2.0.  But look at all these cool sites we didn't have last year!

The point is, defining Web 2.0 in this manner makes it easy to come back later and twist your definition of Web 2.0--you can add attributes, redefine older attributes that didn't really pan out, and basically work it out so whatever new fad comes along is absorbed into 'Web 2.0'.

Again, I'm not saying that they're doing this intentionally, but isn't there a reason why historians wait a while before reporting on history?  Maybe we could use a little bit of ... you know, restraint?
pds Send private email
Sunday, February 05, 2006
I was never a bandwaggoner, Web 2.0 was meaningless when first used and it hasn't coalesced into anything more meaningful since.
Simon Lucy Send private email
Monday, February 06, 2006
So here we are with the backlash against the backlash and very soon there'll be another backlash against that backlash. It's all oscillation around the truth.
Monday, February 06, 2006
I want the truth!
Monday, February 06, 2006
Web 2.0 is the web becoming more friendly + more democratic.

Friendly means 2 things: no more bothering the user when not needed (by asking lots of registration data, sending e-mails, being loaded with banners), and functioning in a slicker way we ever saw before in websites (that's where AJAX comes in)
Democratic means 2 things: great services for free, and users contributing actively to the services

And that's it. It's an undeniable evolution, it's nice to have a short name for it, the above definition says it all (it's basically Paul Grahams explanation) and it's not really a "hype", it's a buzzword at best. "hype" applies maybe to all those individual websites, but not to the term "Web 2.0". I really don't see any problem with it.
wauter Send private email
Monday, February 06, 2006
Friendly: existed previous to web 2.0, under the pseudonym 'usability'.  This isn't a new idea and this isn't a new trend, honestly.

Democratic: I'm still convinced that folksonomy works only in limited scenarios, and that in most cases the sites are enjoying a limited-time boost from the early adopters.  Once the masses arrive, they'll ruin the system with general idiocy.  I just read a book on "The WELL", and everyone admits that such an environment will never be recreated again--the fact that they were such an intelligent group was directly tied to the fact that they were capable of using a computer modem back in 1985 and willing to pay $10 a month.  Nowadays, most of our online communities are powered by phpBB--technically phpBB is light-years ahead of the command-line interface of The WELL, and phpBB is free and doesn't require a $150,000 machine to run.  So phpBB forums should be (all other things equal) generally much higher quality than The WELL--but they're not.  Why?  The masses arrived and ruined it (and then someone invented graphical emoticons--I need say no more).

Let me also point out that there have been lots of people previous to Web 2.0 who have tried to use metadata (A.K.A. tags, A.K.A. folksonomy) in many different forms, and generally failed to reach critical mass.  Why?  Because their system was crappy and/or generally too unfriendly (what we'd call 'unusable' in the elder days) to use. 

My point above is that it seems like everyone's taking the successful web sites and attempting to find common attributes, and generally failing.  What separates the democratic Web 2.0 sites of today and the failed metadata-based initiatives of years past?  Success. 

Thus, instead of using 'democratic' as your attribute, you could instead use 'successful'.  As I've stated above, the quality will begin to degrade at any moment now, but by then someone will have redefined Web 2.0 to cover over any blemishes.
pds Send private email
Monday, February 06, 2006
J, you want the truth?

Well, you can't handle the truth!

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other recent topics Other recent topics
Powered by FogBugz