Web 2.0 Defined
Introduction
In September 2005, an acknowledged guru of Web 2.0 impacts, Tim O'Reilly, noted
there were 9.5 million Google citations for Web 2.0. (Google: O'Reilly – What is
Web 2.0). Two years on, the count was 660 million. Something big is happening.
Web 2.0 is a transformation in internet usage. Whereas via Web 1.0 the user can
access providers and advertisers in read-only format, with Web 2.0 the user actually
interacts with the site and can upload as easily as download, and change, add, or
share any data they like. As with climate warming there are still people saying
there's nothing to it, it's just a fad. But the transition between Webs 1.0 and
2.0 is already underway and will in time be as absolute as the transition from horse
to motor car.
One of the best known Web 2.0 exemplars, Wikipedia is also far and away the best
source for obtaining substantial and well informed insights into Web 2.0. Wikipedia's
accuracy is virtually ensured by the extent of the interaction between so many contributors.
Product versus service
Web 2.0 content is not fixed application, it is service, with the web being transformed
into a platform out there somewhere, simply the device which allows the user, from
their own computer, to go to and play with the target site. The fundamental example
is Google, which " … began its life as a native web application, never sold
or packaged, but delivered as a service, with customers paying, directly or indirectly,
for the use of that service. None of the trappings of the old software industry
are present. No scheduled software releases, just continuous improvement. No licensing
or sale, just usage. . . [Google is] an enabler or middleman between the user and
his or her online experience.” (O'Reilly).
O'Reilly summarises the irreconcilable differences between the two paradigms, Web
1.0 and 2.0: "… the clash isn't between a platform and an application, but between
two platforms, each with a radically different business model: on the one side,
a single software provider, whose massive installed base and tightly integrated
operating system and [program interfaces] give control over the programming paradigm;
on the other, a system without an owner, tied together by a set of protocols, open
standards and agreements for cooperation."
Engagement and participation
The possibilities inherent in the Google example have been massively expanded by
sites such as YouTube, MySpace and Facebook. Although still the property of the
site owners and developers, it is the users who own the data, and who can therefore
interact with it as they choose; what Wikipedia calls ”collaborative websites".
The architecture of participation, which is a defining characteristic of Web 2.0
applications, encourages users to add value to the application as they use it. True
Web 2.0 sites make a mockery of pre-existing sites rebadged with a ‘my’ at the beginning
of their name. These are examples of OldThink Web 1.0, whereby it is felt that if
you change the name of the site it will be magically transformed into Web 2.0. Where
is the engagement, the sharing of data, the active participation?
User demand will force websites to become interactive, and interactive in a way
that suits the users, not the providers. No longer will programmers write software
they like and then see how they can get the web to use it. O'Reilly cites Eric Schmidt's
formulation for writing software for the web: "Don't fight the internet." In other
words, fit in with the web's possibilities and opportunities, not vice versa.
In Web 2.0 applications, the software is useless unless it has mountains of data
with which to attract users, and similarly, all the data waiting out there for a
home have no value unless there is software somewhere which can bring it together
and make it available to all. This is the true magic of Web 2.0, that the value
of a site to providers, advertisers and users is a direct function of the amount
of data on the site and the number of users accessing and changing the content.
The software gains from the users and the users gain from the changes in the software
their involvement has brought about.
Get with the strength
Microsoft's PC revolution saw the decline of IBM's mainframe domination. Then in
its turn Microsoft became rigid in its insistence on flexible but unmodifiable software,
MS Office applications, etc. This rigid PC thinking, which underpinned Web 1.0,
is being blasted away by Web 2.0.
The more people use, add to, change and disseminate the data on a Web 2.0 site,
the more powerful the site becomes. And once a site has shot past a critical threshold,
it is difficult for would-be competitors to crack its dominance, e.g. Amazon, eBay,
SecondLife. Maintaining leadership is a matter of staying open and resisting rigidifying
your advantages. That is, leadership continues to rely on the will and involvement
of the users to drive change, and not the owner's inclination.
Web 2.0 is not just a revolution in the way the web works: it is, and will increasingly
become, a revolution in how the world works. For participants and non-participants
alike, Web 2.0 will turn the world as we know it upside down. It's going to open
up not only social interaction, but also politics, government, commerce, defence,
the media, you name it. A new democratic era is germinating as you read this. Witness
Barack Obama’s electronic presidential campaign.
|