Ever since Dale Dougherty of O’Reilly Media coined the phrase in 2004, several thought leaders have passionately, even animatedly, discussed and debated the meaning of ‘Web 2.0’. They have attempted to distinguish it from the ‘90’s manifestation of the Web’. Clearly, proponents of the Web 2.0 phenomenon find the term rejuvenating and the concept(s) paradigm-shifting. Contrarily, detractors find the term ‘Web 2.0’ repugnant.
So, Why another Attempt?
With the plethora of insightful Web 2.0 descriptions in the media, is there really a need for continuing to belabor the issue? Well, as an ardent observer of the exciting metamorphosis of the Web, I could not resist the temptation of presenting (or, attempting to present) a fresh perspective to the contentious Web2.0 discussion. Views of Richard MacManus (“…Web 2.0 is really about normal everyday people…”) [1], Susan Mernit (“The heart of Web 2.0 is the user…”) [2], Jason Goldberg (“…customers dictate what matters. Rolling up sleeves to help solve their problems…”) [3], Dave Rogers (“…users actually drive the success of Web 2.0…”) [4] and Paul Graham (“…using the way it’s meant to be used”) [5] inspire and bolster me in my endeavor.
I hope, being a zealous user of the Internet, and thus a stakeholder, qualifies me adequately for this ‘brave’ attempt. In providing a new perspective, I hope this literary piece will crystallize Web 2.0 thought further, regardless of whether I receive “bouquets or brickbats” in the process.
Prior Web 2.0 Descriptions
Several Web 2.0 evangelists, such as Tim O'Reilly [6, 7], Richard MacManus [8], Joshua Porter [9], John Hagel [10], Paul Miller [11], DeWitt Clinton [12], Jonathan Boutelle [13], Paul Graham [5], Jay Cross [14], Dion Hinchcliffe [15], Danah Boyd [16], Jared Spool [17], Dave Rogers [4], Brandon Schauer [18], Ian Davis [19], Paul Martino [20], Barb Dybwad [21] etc., have all made significant contributions to the collective attempt to retroactively describe the “Web 2.0 movement”.
The term has evoked a broad spectrum of emotions over time with Stephen Bryant [22] calling it a ‘little misleading’. Other “technology pundits”, most notably Nicholas Carr [23], Tim Bray [24], Russell Shaw [25], Andrew Keen [26], have disputed the ‘epochal’ existence of Web 2.0. They have condemned the hype around the trite term and they have even declared it ‘dangerous’. Joshua Porter [27] has asserted that “Web 2.0 is not necessarily a new phenomenon.” It has even fatigued a protagonist like Richard MacManus [28]. Furthermore, there is a lack of consensus in the version number, with the likes of Dan Gillmor [29] suggesting that ‘Web 3.0’ is a more apposite term for the present avatar of the Web. Charlie Wood [30] has derided it as ‘Bubble 2.0’. So, despite my agreement that the phrase is indeed vacuous, – we don’t refer to the hybrid car industry as ‘Auto 2.0’ – I will continue to use it throughout this essay as a ‘convenient catch phrase’, thus borrowing an expression from DeWitt Clinton [12].
Some of the Web 2.0 expositions are more discerning than others in understanding the essence of Web 2.0. Nevertheless, this collective explanation may fail to sufficiently enlighten – in fact, it may even confuse – the casual reader on what Web 2.0 means exactly. This confusion is evident in the Wikipedia narrative, which states “the term can mean radically different things to different people”. The nebulous nature of the phrase has even lead Tim O’Reilly [6] and Rashmi Sinha [31] to describe it with the help of quintessential archetype(s) and James Governor [32] to explain it through comparative differentiation. Abe Burmeister [33] has critiqued overly-optimistic, utopian visions of Web 2.0.
Notwithstanding the inherent diversity of thought, the copious Web 2.0 explanations are surprisingly (or expectedly, as some may argue) united in the philosophy espoused. While some Web 2.0 definitions are pithy, sometimes even vague, statements, others are more elaborate, verbose treatises on the topic. They collectively present a common denominator of memetic characteristics, which describe the present evolutionary state of the Internet. However, these Web 2.0 enunciations suffer from ambiguity due to a ‘mashup’ of characteristics pertaining to: (a) underlying philosophy, (b) enabling technology, features & applied techniques and (c) emerging application systems. D. Keith Robinson [34] and John Hagel [10], who have respectively reflected on context-driven meaning of Web 2.0 and the emphasis on “examples, components or dimensions” for defining Web 2.0, also apparently subscribe to this viewpoint.
I have published a summary of key Web 2.0 memtic attributes cited in the writings of Internet gurus and technology pundits. It is noteworthy, in fact ironic, that ‘versioning’, a legacy of the ‘desktop as platform’ era, is used to distinguish the ‘neo-Web’ from the ‘erstwhile-Web’. However, the exhaustive characterization of Web 2.0 cannot be disputed. In fact, Russell Shaw [25] has expressed reservations against this “broad-brushing of various incremental Web 2.0 changes under one general umbrella.” The trends that are embodied in the attributes not only characterize Web 2.0, but also clearly portend in some measure the future ‘avatar’ of the Internet.
Critique of previous essays
The excessive use of buzzwords and ‘geek-speak’ makes Web 2.0 definitions esoteric to the layman. They also make Web 2.0 seem like a revolutionary, chronologically discrete invention. The expression of ‘distinctiveness’ in Web 2.0 origins is epitomized in the Bill Janeway [35] statement: “Web 1.0 was about experimentation; Web 2.0 is about building lasting value”. But, ‘experimentation’ is an ongoing phenomenon. The characterization appears like a technological review of ‘Extinct vs. Extant’ phenomena and fails to recognize the ‘incremental’, evolutionary and progressive elements in the new ‘2.0 edition’ of the Web. Qualifying the clauses in the statement with ‘predominantly’ would probably convey a more accurate picture. Indeed, Paul Miller [11] is so accurate in his thought that Web 2.0 comprises of “equal parts of evolution and revolution”.
In reality, Web 2.0 represents a template of criteria, i.e. a recipe, for success learnt from the best-of-breed Internet companies since inception. Several proclaimed Web 2.0 philosophies were truly-speaking embedded in Web 1.0 thought, but were implemented with varying degrees of success and efficacy. Tim O’Reilly [6] is absolutely right in concluding “there’s something qualitatively different about today’s Web.” But, instead of elucidating on ALL Web 2.0 attributes – technical, technological, architectural, tactical & philosophical – the emphasis should be on only those aspects that are radically different and strategic in nature. In fact, such a fine-sieved filter would have removed the technical, technological & tactical attributes from Web 2.0 descriptions. The approach would perhaps even provide a preview of what to expect in the future.
To begin with, using the Web as a platform for disseminating information, publishing content or delivering services (ASPs, exchanges, marketplaces, digital storefronts, etc.) has been a hallmark of the Web over the years. Also, Web 1.0 is replete with instances of online applications, e.g., e-mail services, with free right-to-use. Web-based ‘read-write’ systems (Bulletin Boards, Newsgroups, Forums, etc.) for collaborative, contributive work have also existed since the very early days of the Internet, albeit with less sophistication. The ‘perpetual beta’, which kind of implies the application never matures, cannot be claimed (in spite of its predominant relevance in Web 2.0) as the exclusive preserve of Web 2.0. Conventional software (product) companies have also leveraged the Internet for distributing software updates continually and automatically (e.g. Virus software). And, needless to say, companies have not embraced the concept for general or major software upgrades for purely commercial reasons.
Customer / user empowerment has been an objective – probably an ill-served objective – of Web applications (e.g., Portals) for a long time. ‘Democracy-driven’ applications (User Ratings & Reviews, Recommendations, Polling, etc.) based on explicit user actions have also existed for several years. Web-based collaboration & communication applications (e.g. Instant Messaging, Forums) predate the ‘birth’ of Web 2.0. Providing ‘compelling experience’ (or, ‘compelling event-driven experience’, with the shift in focus of Richard MacManus and Joshua Porter [36] describe) is still a goal for increasing user traffic, enhancing revenue-generation potential and thus insuring ‘survival’ of the service. Indeed, presenting users with a ‘compelling reason to return’ is a challenge every Web 2.0 application encounters.
As Abe Burmeister [33] rightly points out, Web 2.0 applications are only partially opened, often under the garb of privacy & confidentiality. Control over data is never relinquished without restrictions, which often seriously impede commercial exploitation of syndicated data. Personalization (e.g., cookies) of the user interface has been a ‘work-in-progress’ since the very onset of the Internet. And, Web 2.0’s focus on the ‘long-tail’ is reminiscent of the obsessive compulsive disorder of ‘network traffic’ during the Dotcom era. Operations as a core competency is a prerequisite for every successful enterprise not just those in the Web 2.0 realm.
Consumer-defined content metadata (as juxtaposed to creator-defined content metadata prevalent in Web 1.0) and Social Bookmarking systems are innovations that may improve search quality. But, it is naïve to think that the Web 2.0 doctrine is a panacea for the ‘information overload’ problem plaguing the Internet. Andrew Keen [26] has even visualized the possibility of Web 2.0 exacerbating this problem. So, the ability to locate relevant content quickly (or conversely, ‘being findable’, as Stephen Bryant [22] puts it) continues to be an ongoing challenge for Web 2.0. Using ‘democratic’ means for identifying ‘pertinent content’ also suffers from the inherent hypothesis that treats pertinence and popularity as synonymous. ‘Democracy’ over the Web has to deal with imperfections emerging from the lack of an absolute, universally uniform scale for rating content. Glocalization surely seems to be a move in the right direction for eliminating some of these ills.
Finally, it is remarkably paradoxical that Web 2.0 companies attempt to use a socialistic foundation (social networks, participation, freedom from control, etc.) for building a capitalistic edifice based on either: (a) a revenue stream of subscription and/or online advertising, or (b) an exit strategy through an acquisition.
A User’s Perspective
So, then what are the novel tenets that really distinguish Web 2.0 applications from the earlier genre of Web 1.0 applications? In my opinion, the quintessential elements of Web 2.0, distilled from the quantum of attributes contained in the writings of thought-leaders, which I have cataloged separately, are:
- Notwithstanding the lack of true freedom in the exposure, the opening up of web applications and proprietary content through programming interfaces is a colossal change in the attitude of application developers and content creators. This shift in outlook has empowered users to innovatively remix content and aggregate (syndicated) data.
- The no-cost, right-to-use application is also a utopian concept that Web 2.0 may not have introduced, but is definitely championing. It is highly probable that this is just a ploy to secure a critical mass of users. As past track record indicates, once user acceptance of ‘web-based applications’ is acquired, service providers may introduce right-to-use charges (subscription fees or ‘pay-per-use’ charges).
- The use of implicit means for collecting behavioral insights (e.g., content popularity) is a definite trend that Web 2.0 initiated.
- The innate trust placed on the users’ ability to contribute to content metadata definitions (through tagging) and even annotate content in a ‘read-write model’ is another salient aspect of Web 2.0.
All the other attributes listed in contemporary thought are derivatives of the four ‘paradigm-shifting’ Web 2.0 cornerstones enumerated above. Despite the confusion about what constitutes Web 2.0, it cannot be denied that the underlying principles are about improving the Internet and using its power to solve human problems. And, regardless of which side of the fence you are on in the debate, the incremental advances in Web 2.0 have the potential to impact the very foundations of collective and collaborative human existence.
References
1. MacManus, Richard; “Really Simple Web 2.0”, a Read/Write Web blog, 27th September 2005; http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/really_simple_w_1.php
2. Mernit, Susan; “Web 2.0 – it’s not just RSS”, in her blog, 27th September 2005, http://susanmernit.blogspot.com/2005/09/web-20-its-not-just-rss.html
3. Goldberg, Jason; “Web 2.0”, Jobster blog, 5th October 2005, http://jobster.blogs.com/blog_dot_jobster_dot_com/2005/10/web_20.html
4. Rogers, Dave; “Web 2.0: Mistaking the Forest for the Trees?” Gotomedia publication, January 2006; http://www.gotomedia.com/gotoreport/january2006/news_0106_forest.html
5. Graham, Paul; “Web 2.0”, an article, November 2005; http://www.paulgraham.com/articles.html
6. O’Reilly, Tim; "What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software”, 30th September 2005; http://www.oreilly.com/go/web2
7. O’Reilly, Tim; “Web 2.0: Compact Definition?”, O’Reilly Radar blog, 1st October 2005; http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/10/web_20_compact_definition.html
8. MacManus, Richard; “Web 2.0 Definition and Tagging”, Read/Write Web blog, 1st February 2005; http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/web_20_definiti.php
9. Porter, Joshua; “Introduction to Web 2.0”, Squidoo article; http://www.squidoo.com/introtoweb20/
10. Hagel, John; “What is Web 2.0?” Edge Perspectives blog; 25th September 2005, http://edgeperspectives.typepad.com/edge_perspectives/2005/09/what_is_web_20.html
11. Miller, Paul; “Web 2.0: Building the New Library”, Ariadne article, 30th October 2005; http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue45/miller/
12. Clinton, DeWitt; “Web 2.0”, On Web 2.0 blog, 23rd July 2005; http://www.unto.net/unto/work/on-web-20/
13. Boutelle, Jonathan; “Hey DJ – Web 2.0 and remix culture”, Technology, Business, and other obsessions blog, 5th August 2005; http://www.jonathanboutelle.com/mt/archives/2005/08/hey_dj_a_web_20.html
14. Cross, Jay; “Remix”, Internet Time blog, 10th September 2005; http://metatime.blogspot.com/2005/09/remix.html
15. Hinchcliffe, Dion; “The Web 2.0 is here”, Web 2.0 blog, 24th September 2005; http://web2.wsj2.com/web2ishere.htm
16. Boyd, Danah; “Why Web 2.0 Matters: Preparing for Glocalization”, Web 2.0 blog, 5th September 2005; http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2005/09/05/why_web20_matte.html
17. Spool, Jared M.; “Web 2.0: The Power Behind the Hype”, User Interface 10 Conference article, October 2005; http://www.uie.com/events/uiconf/articles/web_2_power
18. Schauer, Brandon; “Experience Attributes: Crucial DNA of Web 2.0”, Adaptive Path essay, 1st December 2005; http://www.adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/archives/000547.php
19. Davis, Ian; “Talis, Web 2.0 and All That”, Internet Alchemy post, 4th July 2005; http://internetalchemy.org/2005/07/talis-web-20-and-all-that
20. Martino, Paul; “What is Web 2.0?” Web 2.0 blog, 2nd October 2005; http://wsfinder.typepad.com/web_service_finder/web_20/index.html
21. Dybwad, Barb; “Approaching a definition of Web 2.0”, The Social Software blog, 29th September 2005; http://socialsoftware.weblogsinc.com/2005/09/29/approaching-a-definition-of-web-2-0/
22. Bryant, Stephen; “Web 2.0 is a Call to Action”, a Publish.com article, 5th October 2005; http://www.publish.com/article2/0,1895,1867224,00.asp
23. Carr, Nicholas; “The amorality of Web 2.0”, Rough Type blog, 3rd October 2005; http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2005/10/the_amorality_o.php
24. Bray, Tim; “Web 2.0 or Not?” Ongoing blog, 8th August, 2005; http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2005/08/09/Web-2.0
25. Shaw, Russell; “Web 2.0? It doesn’t exist”, IP Telephony, VOIP, Broadband blog, 17th December 2005; http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=805
26. Keen, Andrew; “Web 2.0: The second generation of the Internet has arrived. It’s worse than you think”, a weeklystandard.com article, 15th February 2006; http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/714fjczq.asp
27. Porter, Joshua; “More Web 2.0 Questions”, a Bokardo blog, 29th September 2005; http://bokardo.com/archives/more-web-20-questions
28. MacManus, Richard; “Cat eats pigeons: why Web 2.0 has jumped the shark”, Read/Write Web blog, 19th December 2005; http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/cat_eats_pigeon.php
29. Gillmor, Dan; “Web 2.0? Try 3.0”, a Financial Times column article (published in ‘Grassroots Journalism, Etc.’ blog, 22nd April 2005; http://dangillmor.typepad.com/dan_gillmor_on_grassroots/2005/04/web_20_try_30.html
30. Wood, Charlie; posts on Bubble 2.0 blog; http://bubble20.blogspot.com/
31. Sinha, Rashmi; “Web 2.0: Data, Metadata and Interface”, Thoughts on Technology, Design & Cognition, 11th August 2005; http://www.rashmisinha.com/archives/05_08/web2-data-metadata-interface.html
32. Governor, James; “The differences from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0”, MonkChips blog, 12th August 2005, http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/archives/000884.html
33. Burmeister, Abe; “Web 2.0”, Abstract Dynamics blog, 27th August, 2005; http://www.abstractdynamics.org/archives/2005/08/27/web_20.html
34. Robinson, Keith D.; “Web 2.0? Why Should We Care?” a publish.com article, 30th September 2005; http://www.publish.com/article2/0,1895,1860653,00.asp
35. Janeway, Bill; quoted in “Web 2.0” blog of Adam Rifkin, 8th October, 2004; http://ifindkarma.typepad.com/relax/2004/10/web_20.html
36. MacManus, Richard and Porter, Joshua; “Web 2.0 for Designers”, a Digital Web Magazine article, 4th May 2005; http://www.digital-web.com/articles/web_2_for_designers/
No comments:
Post a Comment