[Air-l] Web 2.0 - "the machine is us?"

[Alexis Turner]

Did you perchance read the link I supplied before, in which I outlined what I 
thought the difference between 1.0 and 2.0 was?  Mind you, it was a short 
thought piece, but if it really sucked so badly that you can't tell what I 
think the difference is and/or if you disagree with my assessment, let me 
know and I'll consider revising it.

Full source: http://redheadedstepchild.org/destruct/?page=001753 
Cliff's notes: creative search and navigation capability
-Alexis


On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 elw at stderr.org wrote:

::Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:59:42 -0600 (CST)
::From: elw at stderr.org
::To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org, subbies at redheadedstepchild.org
::Subject: Re: [Air-l] Web 2.0 - "the machine is us?"
::
::
::
::> Mehhhh 2.0.  It's greatest weakness is its popularity, and, well, the fact
::> that
::> is DOES actually do some things that 1.0 didn't.
::
::
::Like what?  [And can you define what gets inclusion in web 1.0?]
::
::My understanding is that the only technological innovation involved is the
::occasional use of the XMLHttpRequest object, which dates back to 2000 or so.
::(Wikipedia says the Mozilla implementation was 2002, the IE one in 2000.)
::
::Nobody will give a solid example of what "Web 2.0" is - methinks because it is
::an invented term still seeking a definition.  I hope O'Reilly is making plenty
::of cash from the coinage of the term.
::
::I can't find *one solitary thing* about Web 2.0 that isn't easily
::implementable using "plain old web technologies" -- what, then, describes the
::ascribed monumental change?
::
::Saying that 'web 2.0' is "all about the social" or something similar is not
::enough, it seems... nor is it enough to talk about the bare technologies being
::used.  Neither of these two things have fundamentally changed, IMHO....
::
::Maybe Web 2.0 is just supposed to describe some new flavor of creativeness
::among application authors?  That's about all I can figure....
::
::--e
::