Web 2.0 Any thoughts?

newstyle · (#1 (**permalink**))

Web 2.0

"An umbrella term for the second wave of the World Wide Web. Web 2.0 implies an information and computing platform as well as a content storehouse. Sometimes called the "New Internet," Web 2.0 promotes thin client computing, where everything is stored on servers (on the Web), and a user has access from any laptop or desktop computer via a Web browser. Client applications that do not require the browser can also be downloaded at any time from the Web.

Web Centric

Web 2.0 suggests a Web-centric source for just about everything: information, entertainment, news, weather, stocks, reference, podcasts, videos and streaming media. It embraces social phenomena that includes blogs, Wikis and online communities such as Friendster, MySpace and Facebook.

The Web-centric approach for applications turns the Web into a "global server" of software and data to end users. Remote servers on the Internet operated and maintained by third parties take the place of the network servers in a company's LAN"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And so, having gone on for so long, I at long last come to my point. The Internet is changing the economics of creative work - or, to put it more broadly, the economics of culture - and it's doing it in a way that may well restrict rather than expand our choices. Wikipedia might be a pale shadow of the Britannica, but because it's created by amateurs rather than professionals, it's free. And free trumps quality all the time. So what happens to those poor saps who write encyclopedias for a living? They wither and die. The same thing happens when blogs and other free on-line content go up against old-fashioned newspapers and magazines. Of course the mainstream media sees the blogosphere as a competitor. It is a competitor. And, given the economics of the competition, it may well turn out to be a superior competitor. The layoffs we've recently seen at major newspapers may just be the beginning, and those layoffs should be cause not for self-satisfied snickering but for despair. Implicit in the ecstatic visions of Web 2.0 is the hegemony of the amateur. I for one can't imagine anything more frightening."

"Like it or not, Web 2.0, like Web 1.0, is amoral. It's a set of technologies - a machine, not a Machine - that alters the forms and economics of production and consumption. It doesn't care whether its consequences are good or bad. It doesn't care whether it brings us to a higher consciousness or a lower one. It doesn't care whether it burnishes our culture or dulls it. It doesn't care whether it leads us into a golden age or a dark one. So let's can the millenialist rhetoric and see the thing for what it is, not what we wish it would be."

http://www.roughtype.com/archives/20...morality_o.php

umbrarchist · (#2 (**permalink**))

Code:

The Internet is  changing the economics of creative work - or, to put it more broadly,  the economics of culture - and it's doing it in a way that may well  restrict rather than expand our choices. Wikipedia might be a pale  shadow of the Britannica, but because it's created by amateurs rather  than professionals, it's free......

Web 1.0, is amoral. It's a set of technologies - a machine, not a  Machine - that alters the forms and economics of production and  consumption. It doesn't care whether its consequences are good or bad.

First of all I would like to add a comment about Encyclopedia Britannica. I own a 1984 edition that I bought used in the early 90s. Several years ago I looked up "electric chair" for some reason and there was nothing. NOTHING! I knew The Chair was invented around 1900 so it made absolutely no sense that a 1984 Britannica would have NO INFORMATION about it. So I went to a local library and checked a 2002 Britannica and it had TWO PARAGRAPHS on the subject but did not say who invented it. You might find the story interesting.

Scheming Tommy

After I learned this I checked my 1984 Britannica for the biography of Thomas Edison. It did say he tried to promote DC over AC but there was no mention of the electric chair.

So although Britannica may be better than Wikipedia in some respects its flaws may be mosre subtle and more sinister. It is and has been part of the socio-economic fabric of America for decades. My mother had a set when I was 7 years old. It has a Aura of Authority that Wiki will take decades to acquire if it ever does. So if Britannica presents distorted information then you should wonder why.

The next issue is what kind of cybernetic society are we going to evolve and who are we going to let make these decisions? A DVD can hold 3,000 books, so 100 DVDs will hold 300,000 books. How many libraries do not have that many? And a home computer could store an index with descriptions and reviews of all of those books. It should be possible to create education machines to take a 5 year old that can read and has started basic arithmatic all of the way through college on any and every subject. We only need the internet for transitory information like music and sports. Scientific knowledge that doesn't really change but just gets added to would just be part of the updatable database.

The whole point of inexpensive microcomputers was decentralization and independence. But the powers that be don't make money on independence. Their objective is to implement the technology so you pay every month. But independece will cost some brain sweat.

umbrarchist

Agu Bu Oji · (#3 (**permalink**))

Anyone heard of, ''The Grid'' hardly read the info above but its the new version of the net the military use sure theres info out there on it and how it works.

The Brittanica is totally biased man, check out what it has to say about Africa and African people. I've got a few dictonaries where our discriptions are basically insults.

LLoydy64 · (#4 (**permalink**))

My perspective

I see Web 2.0 as the natural evolution of the thin client computing model and I think it will definitely take off.

i've been expecting this for a little while.

It was a only a matter of time before developers realised how lucrative it would be to combine the best elements of Content Managments Systems, Web Storage (i drive etc) into interactive applications and services.

HTTP Web access is now a standard feature in most mobile phone handsets.

Hell some phones even have flash player installed!

(Hopefully WAP and it's associated wml markup language are permanently dead and buried - OVER HYPED Teletext type service BULLsh*t - LOL)

This coupled with lower cost mobile dataplans and the proliferation of cheap broadband access packages will ensure that the WEB 2.0 is here to stay.

What I really like about Web 2.0 is the centralised administration concept.

Instead of deploying service packs, software updates et al and worrying about users PC configurations, one can simply conduct all Blackbox/Whitebox testing locally etc and deploy the updates to the webserver the application/service is hosted on.

The only compatibility issues are browser based and these are relatively easy to iron out.

Overall from a business perspective, I think it should makes things a lot easier for the end user and developer.

It's only real flaw is the requirment for an internet connection for "live" applications/services.

newstyle · (#5 (**permalink**))

I like the idea of Wikipedia I'm always thinking about and hoping for an "African" version where we control the content and learn about each other without the prism of Euro centric views of us. (Donâ€™t know if this exists or not yet). As for the whole web 2.0 thing, It seems like one of those buzz words people put into dot com bubble business plans. I understand the importance and excitement but ask the regular guy on the street and I think theyâ€™re likely to look at you strangely. Iâ€™ve always found the likes of myspace insidious, this is the true meaning of the Orwellian big brother allowing ourselves to be observed and monitored by our peers and worse marketing and advertising people. Also do people think web 2.0 is the much vaunted â€œconvergenceâ€? in media at least? Also if all your apps are online and your connection ****s up, that would really piss people off.

umbrarchist · (#6 (**permalink**))

Code:

Also if all your apps are online and your connection f**ks up, that would really piss people off.

The computer industry is trying to have its cake and eat it too. This is about MONEY. They want to make money selling us more and more powerful computers with bigger and bigger hard drives and blue laser DVDs. But the more powerful your computer and that more storage capacity the less you may need the internet.

How often does software really need to be upgraded? Remember the Y2K Bug? Why did that happen? Because companies were running software 20 and 30 years old. Companies didn't change software just to add higher resolution graphics and silly features, once it did the job right they left it alone. Some of it just hadn't been written to take care of the year 2000. Do you think a 25 year old programmer in 1975 would worry about the year 2000? Not likely! But now they want to upgrade software so often we shouldn't want it on our own computer but run it off the Net. Why should I need a 3 GHz quad-core computer to run software on the net?

This is getting beyond stupid. We are supposed to fall for a stupid business model that continuiously takes money out of our pockets.

umbrarchist