[Air-l] how to pin down web 2.0

Alexis Turner subbies at redheadedstepchild.org
Sat Apr 21 16:08:01 PDT 2007


I posed it in my last message (in its brevity), as a simple summation of 
Lane's 7 points - half of which were very, very specifically business 
oriented.  I don't think the tenor of the post matched especially well with 
the chosen definitions and I was calling her (him?) on it.

The fact is, though, it's a bit of a a chicken & egg problem, isn't it?
Is Web 2.0 built by business, or co-opted by business?  Personally, I think the 
latter, which hasn't been mentioned much on the list but which finds a nice 
balance between the two sides (which I see as the Romantic Rollers vs. the Jaded 
Spades).

 Even I, on occasion, can get misty eyed and hopeful and agree with your claim 
that things started out in basements by people with all the best intentions.  
We're going to share!  It's social!  Power to the (many) people!  And, yes, I 
would also agree that this is not necessarily a bad thing.  But let's be real 
about the difference between what we want at the beginning of the day and what 
we get at the end of it.  it's usually not everything we dreamed of, even if we 
get part way there.

So, yeah, maybe things started out that way, but by its very nature, doesn't Web 
2.0 just scream to corporations to look 
at it - after all, what more could an investor want than to know, up front, that 
millions of customers are clamoring for a product?  By its very collaborative 
nature, any remotely succesful Web 2.0 "product," "service," or "platform" is 
going to ask to become corporatized, because it already has a devoted 
community.  Or customer base, if your eye is bent to looking at it in those 
terms. Corporations take what's good about 2.0 and twist it to their own ends.  
At the end of the day, then, you may be part of a community and enjoy all the 
perks therein, but the food's provided by McDonald's.
-Alexis




On Sat, 21 Apr 2007, danah boyd wrote:

::Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 05:59:53 -0700
::From: danah boyd <aoir.z3z at danah.org>
::To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org, subbies at redheadedstepchild.org
::Subject: Re: [Air-l] how to pin down web 2.0
::
::I would violently disagree with this categorization.  Web1.0 was the boom
::where companies sold fiction to venture capitalists and walked out like
::bandits.  The vast majority of what is categorized as Web2.0 was built in the
::rubble of the crash.  There is no doubt that the last year has involved
::numerous buyouts by large corporations but the vast majority of Web2.0 apps
::were built in total startup mode without an eye for business, with a focus on
::people like the creators, and with zero market research.  Blogger, LJ,
::Friendster, MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Wikipedia, Flickr,
::Socialtext, Upcoming, ...  these are not big corporate projects, even if
::they've been bought or expanded beyond their britches.  With big megacorps
::embracing Web2.0, funny things are happening, but that's not the crux of what
::this term is signaling.
::
::
::On Apr 20, 2007, at 3:56 PM, Alexis Turner wrote:
::
::> In other words, Web 1.0 was something created by individuals, and Web 2.0 is
::> the
::> Web through the lens of business, user-leveraged experience, and market
::> drive
::> research.
::> -Alexis
::> 
::> 
::> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Lane DeNicola wrote:
::> 
::> ::Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:11:50 -0400
::> ::From: Lane DeNicola <denicola at alum.rpi.edu>
::> ::Reply-To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org
::> ::To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org
::> ::Subject: Re: [Air-l] how to pin down web 2.0
::> ::
::> ::Mark Warschaur mentioned O'Reilly Media as the cited progenitor of the
::> ::term Web 2.0, and I'd argue Tim O'Reilly's (rather lengthy) 2005
::> ::article--appropriately titled "What is Web 2.0?"--is probably still
::> ::the best general source on the concept:
::> ::
::> ::http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-
::> is-web-20.html
::> ::
::> ::According to the concept as built there, Alex Halavais is effectively
::> ::right, that the term denotes "companies that have attracted funding or
::> ::make money on the web over the last few years," but also that "it
::> ::suggests some kind of breaking point with earlier approaches to
::> ::design," to wit:
::> ::
::> ::"In exploring the seven principles above, we've highlighted some of
::> ::the principal features of Web 2.0. Each of the examples we've explored
::> ::demonstrates one or more of those key principles, but may miss others.
::> ::Let's close, therefore, by summarizing what we believe to be the core
::> ::competencies of Web 2.0 companies:
::> ::
::> ::    * Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability
::> ::    * Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get
::> ::richer as more people use them
::> ::    * Trusting users as co-developers
::> ::    * Harnessing collective intelligence
::> ::    * Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service
::> ::    * Software above the level of a single device
::> ::    * Lightweight user interfaces, development models, AND business models
::> ::
::> ::The next time a company claims that it's "Web 2.0," test their
::> ::features against the list above. The more points they score, the more
::> ::they are worthy of the name. Remember, though, that excellence in one
::> ::area may be more telling than some small steps in all seven."
::> ::
::> ::I'd advocate the use of the term, if only because of its circulation
::> ::as industry vernacular, but its use should be well-qualified.  As a
::> ::fluid construct (one used here to designate "companies with certain
::> ::competencies," rather than, say, qualities of specific technologies)
::> ::perhaps the best course would be to qualify it as "O'Reilly's (or
::> ::whomever's) conceptualization of Web 2.0."
::> ::
::> ::--
::> ::Lane DeNicola
::> ::Doctoral Candidate | Dept. of Science & Technology Studies
::> ::Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
::> ::http://www.nacresky.com/lad
::> ::Tried the Science Studies Search Engine? <http://www.nacresky.com/ssse>
::> ::_______________________________________________
::> ::The air-l at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
::> ::is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
::> ::Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://
::> listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
::> ::
::> ::Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
::> ::http://www.aoir.org/
::> ::
::> _______________________________________________
::> The air-l at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
::> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
::> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://
::> listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
::> 
::> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
::> http://www.aoir.org/
::
::- - - - - - - - - - d a n a h ( d o t ) o r g - - - - - - - - - -
::"taken out of context i must seem so strange"
::
::musings :: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts
::
::
::
::
::



More information about the Air-L mailing list