Home
PublicationsWhat Is Web 2.0
Page 1 of 1
What Is Web 2.0
by moh22 Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:56 am
What Is Web 2.0
Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of
Software
Oct. 2009: Tim O'Reilly and John Battelle answer the question of
"What's next for Web 2.0?" in Web
Squared: Web 2.0 Five Years On.
The bursting of the dot-com bubble in the fall of 2001 marked a
turning point for the web. Many people concluded that the web was
overhyped, when in fact bubbles
and consequent shakeouts appear to be a common feature of all
technological revolutions. Shakeouts typically mark the point at
which an ascendant technology is ready to take its place at center
stage. The pretenders are given the bum's rush, the real success stories
show their strength, and there begins to be an understanding of what
separates one from the other.
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. What's more, the companies
that had survived the collapse seemed to have some things in common.
Could it be that the dot-com collapse marked some kind of turning point
for the web, such that a call to action such as "Web 2.0" might make
sense? We agreed that it did, and so the Web 2.0 Conference was born.
In the year and a half since, the term "Web 2.0" has clearly taken
hold, with more than 9.5 million citations in Google. But there's still a huge
amount of disagreement about just what Web 2.0 means, with some
people decrying it as a meaningless marketing buzzword, and others
accepting it as the new conventional wisdom.
This article is an attempt to clarify just what we mean by Web 2.0.
In our initial brainstorming, we formulated our sense of Web 2.0 by
example:
The list went on and on. But what was it that made us identify one
application or approach as "Web 1.0" and another as "Web 2.0"? (The
question is particularly urgent because the Web 2.0 meme has become so
widespread that companies are now pasting it on as a marketing buzzword,
with no real understanding of just what it means. The question is
particularly difficult because many of those buzzword-addicted startups
are definitely not Web 2.0, while some of the applications we
identified as Web 2.0, like Napster and BitTorrent, are not even
properly web applications!) We began trying to tease out the principles
that are demonstrated in one way or another by the success stories of
web 1.0 and by the most interesting of the new applications.
Learn more about Web 2.0 at:
Web 2.0
Expo is a conference and tradeshow for everyone who cares about
embracing and extending the opportunities created by Web 2.0
technologies
Co-produced by O'Reilly Media and TechWeb
Web 2.0
Summit is an exclusive annual event that connects the business
leaders, big thinkers, and innovative technologists who are shaping the
future of the Web.
Co-produced by O'Reilly Media and TechWeb
1. The Web As Platform
Like many important concepts, Web 2.0 doesn't have a hard boundary,
but rather, a gravitational core. You can visualize
Web 2.0 as a set of principles and practices that tie together a
veritable solar system of sites that demonstrate some or all of those
principles, at a varying distance from that core.
Figure 1 shows a "meme map" of Web 2.0 that was developed at a
brainstorming session during FOO Camp, a conference at O'Reilly Media.
It's very much a work in progress, but shows the many ideas that radiate
out from the Web 2.0 core.
For example, at the first Web 2.0 conference, in October 2004, John
Battelle and I listed a preliminary set of principles in our opening
talk. The first of those principles was "The web as platform." Yet that
was also a rallying cry of Web 1.0 darling Netscape, which went down in
flames after a heated battle with Microsoft. What's more, two of our
initial Web 1.0 exemplars, DoubleClick and Akamai, were both pioneers in
treating the web as a platform. People don't often think of it as "web
services", but in fact, ad serving was the first widely deployed web
service, and the first widely deployed "mashup" (to use another term
that has gained currency of late). Every banner ad is served as a
seamless cooperation between two websites, delivering an integrated page
to a reader on yet another computer. Akamai also treats the network as
the platform, and at a deeper level of the stack, building a transparent
caching and content delivery network that eases bandwidth congestion.
Nonetheless, these pioneers provided useful contrasts because later
entrants have taken their solution to the same problem even further,
understanding something deeper about the nature of the new platform.
Both DoubleClick and Akamai were Web 2.0 pioneers, yet we can also see
how it's possible to realize more of the possibilities by embracing
additional Web
2.0 design patterns.
Let's drill down for a moment into each of these three cases, teasing
out some of the essential elements of difference.
Netscape vs. Google
If Netscape was the standard bearer for Web 1.0, Google is most
certainly the standard bearer for Web 2.0, if only because their
respective IPOs were defining events for each era. So let's start with a
comparison of these two companies and their positioning.
Netscape framed "the web as platform" in terms of the old software
paradigm: their flagship product was the web browser, a desktop
application, and their strategy was to use their dominance in the
browser market to establish a market for high-priced server products.
Control over standards for displaying content and applications in the
browser would, in theory, give Netscape the kind of market power enjoyed
by Microsoft in the PC market. Much like the "horseless carriage"
framed the automobile as an extension of the familiar, Netscape promoted
a "webtop" to replace the desktop, and planned to populate that webtop
with information updates and applets pushed to the webtop by information
providers who would purchase Netscape servers.
In the end, both web browsers and web servers turned out to be
commodities, and value moved "up the stack" to services delivered over
the web platform.
Google, by contrast, 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. No porting to different platforms so that customers can run
the software on their own equipment, just a massively scalable
collection of commodity PCs running open source operating systems plus
homegrown applications and utilities that no one outside the company
ever gets to see.
At bottom, Google requires a competency that Netscape never needed:
database management. Google isn't just a collection of software tools,
it's a specialized database. Without the data, the tools are useless;
without the software, the data is unmanageable. Software licensing and
control over APIs--the lever of power in the previous era--is irrelevant
because the software never need be distributed but only performed, and
also because without the ability to collect and manage the data, the
software is of little use. In fact, the value of the software is
proportional to the scale and dynamism of the data it helps to manage.
Google's service is not a server--though it is delivered by a massive
collection of internet servers--nor a browser--though it is experienced
by the user within the browser. Nor does its flagship search service
even host the content that it enables users to find. Much like a phone
call, which happens not just on the phones at either end of the call,
but on the network in between, Google happens in the space between
browser and search engine and destination content server, as an enabler
or middleman between the user and his or her online experience.
While both Netscape and Google could be described as software
companies, it's clear that Netscape belonged to the same software world
as Lotus, Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, and other companies that got their
start in the 1980's software revolution, while Google's fellows are
other internet applications like eBay, Amazon, Napster, and yes,
DoubleClick and Akamai
Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of
Software
Oct. 2009: Tim O'Reilly and John Battelle answer the question of
"What's next for Web 2.0?" in Web
Squared: Web 2.0 Five Years On.
The bursting of the dot-com bubble in the fall of 2001 marked a
turning point for the web. Many people concluded that the web was
overhyped, when in fact bubbles
and consequent shakeouts appear to be a common feature of all
technological revolutions. Shakeouts typically mark the point at
which an ascendant technology is ready to take its place at center
stage. The pretenders are given the bum's rush, the real success stories
show their strength, and there begins to be an understanding of what
separates one from the other.
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. What's more, the companies
that had survived the collapse seemed to have some things in common.
Could it be that the dot-com collapse marked some kind of turning point
for the web, such that a call to action such as "Web 2.0" might make
sense? We agreed that it did, and so the Web 2.0 Conference was born.
In the year and a half since, the term "Web 2.0" has clearly taken
hold, with more than 9.5 million citations in Google. But there's still a huge
amount of disagreement about just what Web 2.0 means, with some
people decrying it as a meaningless marketing buzzword, and others
accepting it as the new conventional wisdom.
This article is an attempt to clarify just what we mean by Web 2.0.
In our initial brainstorming, we formulated our sense of Web 2.0 by
example:
| DoubleClick | --> | Google AdSense |
| Ofoto | --> | Flickr |
| Akamai | --> | BitTorrent |
| mp3.com | --> | Napster |
| Britannica Online | --> | Wikipedia |
| personal websites | --> | blogging |
| evite | --> | upcoming.org and EVDB |
| domain name speculation | --> | search engine optimization |
| page views | --> | cost per click |
| screen scraping | --> | web services |
| publishing | --> | participation |
| content management systems | --> | wikis |
| directories (taxonomy) | --> | tagging ("folksonomy") |
| stickiness | --> | syndication |
application or approach as "Web 1.0" and another as "Web 2.0"? (The
question is particularly urgent because the Web 2.0 meme has become so
widespread that companies are now pasting it on as a marketing buzzword,
with no real understanding of just what it means. The question is
particularly difficult because many of those buzzword-addicted startups
are definitely not Web 2.0, while some of the applications we
identified as Web 2.0, like Napster and BitTorrent, are not even
properly web applications!) We began trying to tease out the principles
that are demonstrated in one way or another by the success stories of
web 1.0 and by the most interesting of the new applications.
Learn more about Web 2.0 at:
Web 2.0
Expo is a conference and tradeshow for everyone who cares about
embracing and extending the opportunities created by Web 2.0
technologies
Co-produced by O'Reilly Media and TechWeb
Web 2.0
Summit is an exclusive annual event that connects the business
leaders, big thinkers, and innovative technologists who are shaping the
future of the Web.
Co-produced by O'Reilly Media and TechWeb
1. The Web As Platform
Like many important concepts, Web 2.0 doesn't have a hard boundary,
but rather, a gravitational core. You can visualize
Web 2.0 as a set of principles and practices that tie together a
veritable solar system of sites that demonstrate some or all of those
principles, at a varying distance from that core.
Figure 1 shows a "meme map" of Web 2.0 that was developed at a
brainstorming session during FOO Camp, a conference at O'Reilly Media.
It's very much a work in progress, but shows the many ideas that radiate
out from the Web 2.0 core.
For example, at the first Web 2.0 conference, in October 2004, John
Battelle and I listed a preliminary set of principles in our opening
talk. The first of those principles was "The web as platform." Yet that
was also a rallying cry of Web 1.0 darling Netscape, which went down in
flames after a heated battle with Microsoft. What's more, two of our
initial Web 1.0 exemplars, DoubleClick and Akamai, were both pioneers in
treating the web as a platform. People don't often think of it as "web
services", but in fact, ad serving was the first widely deployed web
service, and the first widely deployed "mashup" (to use another term
that has gained currency of late). Every banner ad is served as a
seamless cooperation between two websites, delivering an integrated page
to a reader on yet another computer. Akamai also treats the network as
the platform, and at a deeper level of the stack, building a transparent
caching and content delivery network that eases bandwidth congestion.
Nonetheless, these pioneers provided useful contrasts because later
entrants have taken their solution to the same problem even further,
understanding something deeper about the nature of the new platform.
Both DoubleClick and Akamai were Web 2.0 pioneers, yet we can also see
how it's possible to realize more of the possibilities by embracing
additional Web
2.0 design patterns.
Let's drill down for a moment into each of these three cases, teasing
out some of the essential elements of difference.
Netscape vs. Google
If Netscape was the standard bearer for Web 1.0, Google is most
certainly the standard bearer for Web 2.0, if only because their
respective IPOs were defining events for each era. So let's start with a
comparison of these two companies and their positioning.
Netscape framed "the web as platform" in terms of the old software
paradigm: their flagship product was the web browser, a desktop
application, and their strategy was to use their dominance in the
browser market to establish a market for high-priced server products.
Control over standards for displaying content and applications in the
browser would, in theory, give Netscape the kind of market power enjoyed
by Microsoft in the PC market. Much like the "horseless carriage"
framed the automobile as an extension of the familiar, Netscape promoted
a "webtop" to replace the desktop, and planned to populate that webtop
with information updates and applets pushed to the webtop by information
providers who would purchase Netscape servers.
In the end, both web browsers and web servers turned out to be
commodities, and value moved "up the stack" to services delivered over
the web platform.
Google, by contrast, 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. No porting to different platforms so that customers can run
the software on their own equipment, just a massively scalable
collection of commodity PCs running open source operating systems plus
homegrown applications and utilities that no one outside the company
ever gets to see.
At bottom, Google requires a competency that Netscape never needed:
database management. Google isn't just a collection of software tools,
it's a specialized database. Without the data, the tools are useless;
without the software, the data is unmanageable. Software licensing and
control over APIs--the lever of power in the previous era--is irrelevant
because the software never need be distributed but only performed, and
also because without the ability to collect and manage the data, the
software is of little use. In fact, the value of the software is
proportional to the scale and dynamism of the data it helps to manage.
Google's service is not a server--though it is delivered by a massive
collection of internet servers--nor a browser--though it is experienced
by the user within the browser. Nor does its flagship search service
even host the content that it enables users to find. Much like a phone
call, which happens not just on the phones at either end of the call,
but on the network in between, Google happens in the space between
browser and search engine and destination content server, as an enabler
or middleman between the user and his or her online experience.
While both Netscape and Google could be described as software
companies, it's clear that Netscape belonged to the same software world
as Lotus, Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, and other companies that got their
start in the 1980's software revolution, while Google's fellows are
other internet applications like eBay, Amazon, Napster, and yes,
DoubleClick and Akamai
moh22- الجنس :
عدد المساهمات : 490
النقاط : 56208
التقييم : 36
تاريخ التسجيل : 2010-02-16
Re: What Is Web 2.0
by moh22 Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:57 am
DoubleClick vs. Overture and AdSense
Like Google, DoubleClick is a true child of the internet era. It
harnesses software as a service, has a core competency in data
management, and, as noted above, was a pioneer in web services long
before web services even had a name. However, DoubleClick was ultimately
limited by its business model. It bought into the '90s notion that the
web was about publishing, not participation; that advertisers, not
consumers, ought to call the shots; that size mattered, and that the
internet was increasingly being dominated by the top websites as
measured by MediaMetrix and other web ad scoring companies.
As a result, DoubleClick proudly cites on its website "over 2000
successful implementations" of its software. Yahoo! Search Marketing
(formerly Overture) and Google AdSense,
by contrast, already serve hundreds of thousands of advertisers apiece.
Overture and Google's success came from an understanding of what
Chris Anderson refers to as "the long tail," the collective power of the
small sites that make up the bulk of the web's content. DoubleClick's
offerings require a formal sales contract, limiting their market to the
few thousand largest websites. Overture and Google figured out how to
enable ad placement on virtually any web page. What's more, they
eschewed publisher/ad-agency friendly advertising formats such as banner
ads and popups in favor of minimally intrusive, context-sensitive,
consumer-friendly text advertising.
The Web 2.0 lesson: leverage customer-self service and
algorithmic data management to reach out to the entire web, to the edges
and not just the center, to the long tail and not just the head.
more ....
http://oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=2
Like Google, DoubleClick is a true child of the internet era. It
harnesses software as a service, has a core competency in data
management, and, as noted above, was a pioneer in web services long
before web services even had a name. However, DoubleClick was ultimately
limited by its business model. It bought into the '90s notion that the
web was about publishing, not participation; that advertisers, not
consumers, ought to call the shots; that size mattered, and that the
internet was increasingly being dominated by the top websites as
measured by MediaMetrix and other web ad scoring companies.
As a result, DoubleClick proudly cites on its website "over 2000
successful implementations" of its software. Yahoo! Search Marketing
(formerly Overture) and Google AdSense,
by contrast, already serve hundreds of thousands of advertisers apiece.
Overture and Google's success came from an understanding of what
Chris Anderson refers to as "the long tail," the collective power of the
small sites that make up the bulk of the web's content. DoubleClick's
offerings require a formal sales contract, limiting their market to the
few thousand largest websites. Overture and Google figured out how to
enable ad placement on virtually any web page. What's more, they
eschewed publisher/ad-agency friendly advertising formats such as banner
ads and popups in favor of minimally intrusive, context-sensitive,
consumer-friendly text advertising.
The Web 2.0 lesson: leverage customer-self service and
algorithmic data management to reach out to the entire web, to the edges
and not just the center, to the long tail and not just the head.
more ....
http://oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=2
moh22- الجنس :
عدد المساهمات : 490
النقاط : 56208
التقييم : 36
تاريخ التسجيل : 2010-02-16
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum|
|
|