Okay, I know that's too strong.
Marshall Kirkpatrick has a great definition of Web2.0.
A good, concise definition with ramifications, goals, and prerequisites.
Michael discusses collaboration, rapid site access, and infrastructure improvements, themes I have always included as the cornerstone of Web 2.0. He also discusses the differences between web 1.0 and web 2.0 which are similar to those I discussed in my Oedipal Trajectory of Web 2.0 post a while back.
He just does it in less words than I seem to use.
I am in this strange space of being a huge proponent of Web 2.0 and totally tired of contstantly having to defend the term "Web 2.0."
The main arguments against it are:
- The goals of Web 2.0 are not new
- The tools of Web 2.0 are not new
- Web 2.0 is just hype for VCs and bloggers
- Web 2.0 is a geek orgy with no practical applications
All these arguments are totally valid. But who cares if they are totally valid?
The concepts that are wrapped up in Web 2.0 need a name in order to be easily discussed. My post yesterday posited that Web 2.0 has been so embattled that even great definitions like Michael's don't undo the damage. But Web 2.0 should be about the functionality and not the term itself.
My personal reservations around the term center on the word "Web". Michael's points include:
- Nearly ubiquitous broadband zips data around much of the world in a way that's effortless to users.
- Data storage is now cheap as dirt.
- Ingenuity, and the above factors, have led to the coalescence of the last 10 years of programming innovation to a tipping point.
These are true, and they divorce the current revolution from the browser. To most people web = browser. Web 2.0 then takes on a browser-centric model which is not necessary. New refrigerators, automobiles and stoves can talk to their homes and get firmware updates and report on status. These aren't browsers - but they are making use of these technologies.
As time goes on, intelligent vehicles will be creating mobile peer to peer networks, reporting their locations, speed, trajectory, etc. This type of collaboration is entirely separate from the browser. I would argue that they do represent collaboration and pervasive computing in the spirit of the term Web 2.0, however.
Photo: Clara Natoli