Nick Carr comments today about the competing definitions for Web 2.0 and the use of jargon, concluding that at the heart of the matter is … well, nothing. Writing about Tim O’Reilly’s What is Web 2.0? essay, he states:
O’Reilly provided a series of observations and impressions, and, really, that’s the best way to approach any discussion of “Web 2.0.” You need to “walk around the subject,” because if you try to get to the center of it you’ll find there’s nothing there.
I’ve written about this at some length before. If no-one agrees about what Web 2.0 is — and believe me, they don’t — doesn’t that mean it’s the Emperor’s New Clothes? That there’s ‘nothing there’? I can understand Carr’s point and appreciate why he says it, but I think he’s wrong. Things that are quite big and complicated are very difficult to define and people disagree about them. Philosophers have spent at least 3000 years attempting to define ‘good’, ‘evil’, ‘beauty’, and ‘knowledge’. They are things that most of us would agree exist yet we can’t seem to get a handle on their precise meaning. The typical philosopher is pretty bright, but can they agree? Can they heck.
Look at the very beginning of O’Reilly’s essay recounting a discussion in early 2004:
The concept of “Web 2.0″ began with a conference brainstorming session between O’Reilly and MediaLive International. Dale Dougherty, web pioneer and O’Reilly VP, noted that far from having “crashed”, the web was more important than ever, with exciting new applications and sites popping up with surprising regularity.
At that point, when the discussion started, there was no talk of the web as platform, collective intelligence, AJAX or any of the other memes surrounding this subject. They all got added on afterwards. What Dougherty was talking about was economic regeneration and a fresh excitement about the Internet following the first wave that ended in the NASDAQ crash of 2001. That’s why it’s called 2.0, not because it’s got tags or ‘UGC’ or data as the new Intel Inside. Well, that, and the fact that it was a pretty buzzy name for a conference.
So where does that leave us now? Well, it means that Web 2.0 is quite an appropriate description for ‘exciting new applications and sites’ — that was how the expression was coined. It may well have tags, social media, networks and all those shenanigans, but it doesn’t need to. The main thing is that they are innovative. And the thing about innovative sites and services, if they really are innovative, is that they are a bit different to the things we had before they arrived. Web 2.0 is a moving target, sure, but that behaviour goes to the heart of its meaning.
Update: if more than five people link to this post, I will declare a moratorium on headlines involving lyrics from Boston.
Share this post:
Who cares what it is exactly, what interests me most is that Web 20 applications may just put the BIG BOYS out of business as Web 2.0 software runs from a web site without any install. Also most web based apps are free to use.
There’s a Web 2.0 search engine @ http://www.web20searchengine.com :)
Hi!
I feel myself one of those who don’t think that calling the Web 2.0 a “Technology” is correct.
“Good”, “Bad”, “Evil” differs from technologies. We should discuss for years about something so evanescent, but what if a customer comes to you saying: I want a new website for my company, and I want it in Web 2.0?
Does he wants some ajaxed features? (or does it want to have a good SEO instead?)
Does he wants its customer to be able to interact actively with his company? (or simply he wants some new graphics)
We should be talking about technology (IMHO) and a technology should be clearly defined!
Is CSS2 Web2.0? and HTML? (or only XHTML…)
I cannot agree on your point of view, because we are talking about Science, not Philosophy, aren’t we?
Flexibility, not lack of specifications.
PS: and what about the future? The so called Semantic Web everyone is talking about: should it have some strongly defined rules and Standards or not?
PS: everything I’ve written is obviously IMHO!!!
Cheers
Hi there Carlo. I take your point. It does leave things a bit vague if you agree with the definition I suggest in the last paragraph. Things like AJAX, user content, and functionality are all *separate* technologies, though. You don’t have to tick all the boxes to be part of the club.
Good point about science vs. philosophy. I was probably trying too hard to be controversial.
Ian,
being controversial, sometimes, means creating new point of view.
Latins said:
In Media Res Stat Virtus (The virtues stand in the Middle) and I think that in every discussion, being able to see two opposite points let us feel another one (most of the time in the middle) we didn’t see before.
From a technical point of view I cannot agree on a too wide definition, because it doesn’t give e the boundaries in which I can play my role. Having boundaries is a requirement in order to delivery functionalities, not having it means having the entire sea to search for an answer (without Google).
Of course I’ve played the Devil’s Advocate a little bit (sorry for that) but my point is: technology must be driven by targets. In order to have clear targets to reach the foundations for a new technology should be quite clear.
I’m looking for a next generation of the web, where the technology should play the Transparent part, but boosting what we really need. I don’t want to call it Web3.0, because it would be childish, but thinking about a “Semantic Web” where metadata should be understood by computers and delivered us in the correct way is something great.
To do this, in my opinion, we should forgot how the Web2.0 begun, and think about the methodologies we should use. Methodologies, Standards, clear technical rule to make the technology transparent.
Carlo
I’m not sure I believe in ‘in media res’, otherwise, we’d all vote for the Lib Dems, and that can’t be a good thing.
I think that the answer is probably in the question, to quote another great sage, Les Dawson on Blankety-Blank.
If a client says they want Web 2.0 on their site, then you can take it that they want it to be fresh and exciting, but what do they actually mean in terms of features? Do they want all of it? Or just comments? Or do they just want rounded corners and gradients?
Gathering requirements has always impressed me. 9 out of 10 what the customers tell you the first time is not what they really want. But this is a problem of communication.
A good “project manager” is capable of understanding the environment that is required, not the one that is perceived.
I mostly feel the Web2.0 as a “misperception of the reality” (ok, big big words), because a lot of times I’ve seen ideas of “My New Web 2.0 Website” becoming a fact of CSS or RSS feeds… those were already present before the coin of the “Magic Word”.
It seems to me (and I admit being no-one) that this “Web 2.0″ is a big light flashed into everyone’s eyes. What do you see is only light, but looking long enough in it you can perceive everything!
I know I’m a little in contrast with the world of the shiny 2.0, but it seems to me that too many times it is referred to old clothes made new.
As for the Media Res… well, what you say is true, and pointing to the politics makes me out of the game :P (allergy?)
Cheers!
Mate — you are bang on the money with that comment!
[…] I have been reading a discussion about trying to define Web 2.0. Nick at Rough Type makes the point that Web 2.0 is useless for specialists as it doesn’t define anything; it is a vague and generalist buzzword that doesn’t actually mean very much beyond general impressions. TwoPoinTOuch responds that simply because you cannot define something doesn’t mean it isn’t there. […]
[…] and generalist buzzword that doesn’t actually mean very much beyond general impressions. TwoPoinTouch responds that simply because you cannot define something doesn’t mean it isn’t […]