I started off looking for an article I saw earlier in the week about how to effectively teach RSS. Well I found that article, but it started off with “Of all of the Web2.0 tools I know of, I think that RSS is one of the most difficult to explain to new users.” which made my brain say, wait, what exactly is Web 2.0 anyway? I thought I should know about that before I go into a specific tool. Here’s what I’ve gathered so far:
I instinctively typed “web 2.0″ into the Google search bar and soon found this article from O’Reilly. It starts with a great table of site comparisons that give you a quick sense of the difference between Web 1.0 and 2.0:
Web 1.0 –> Web 2.0
DoubleClick –> Google AdSense
Ofoto (now Kodak Gallery) –> Flickr
Akamai –> BitTorrent
mp3.com –> Napster
Britannica Online –> Wikipedia
personal websites –> blogging
Basically the difference is that all of the sites and services on the left side, Web 1.0, thrived on static production. Whereas 2.0 thrives on dynamic participation. And the more participation there is, the better the web service is. Take Flickr or BitTorrent for example. It’s the community aspect behind both of these services that make it so powerful.
O’Reilly also makes a good point by saying that great examples of Web 2.0 services are rarely advertised. Ever seen a Google commercial? Probably not, and yet Google is indisputably the #1 search engine and even a well-recognized verb, “just Google it”. Web 2.0 is the reason your Amazon.com shopping experience is so helpful and personalized, on every page there’s something you can rate, vote on, or review. When these opinions come together as a customer collective then voila, suddenly you have a whole page of book recommendations that actually look interesting to you. The energy of Web 2.0 isn’t spent on marketing, it’s spent on the technology that enables the service, that’s what sustains it.
Another key component is the open-source factor, harvesting collective knowledge. This brings in RSS and the impact it’s had on blogs, new sites, etc. It’s why wikipedia has articles on just about everything, and it’s totally free to use.
Also noted is the idea that “SQL is the new HTML” meaning most websites are dynamically driven, like this one. When I’m done writing this I will click “Publish” and it will be saved into a database that’s hosted by NearlyFreeSpeech.net. The next time you visit this site it will be called up by mySQL, rendered into PHP, and displayed in your browser.
So in all actuality, all the content of this site physically resides in the database. Does that mean whoever owns the server that hosts my database also owns this entry? O’Reilly’s article points out how MapQuest’s failure to actually own the database of maps gave way to the success of Yahoo! Maps and GoogleMaps. Had they actually owned all of the core data, they would have a better monopoly on this service.
The idea of web services as opposed to web software means the beginning of the end of product releases. Web 2.0 sites are in a perpetual beta state, and there’s little on your end that you have to do to update it. As opposed to the big production that Microsoft makes every 2 or 3 years. With Web 2.0, the users are the testers and developers, and each little change or addition to a service is watched carefully. If something isn’t popular, it’s taken off, simple as that. Imagine if we had such control and input on the Windows operating system?
The article also goes into topics like how business models will change, etc. but honestly, I skimmed over that part. I’m not a business girl at all.
I think what I gained from this article overall, is that Web 2.0 is an advancement using simplicity and community to make it powerful. Companies are finding that the more they open up, the better their services become. Isn’t that always the case? The simplist way is always the best, esp. with web design.
Now, on to RSS…
SAN FRANCISCO — Apple Computer CEO Steve Jobs took center stage at Macworld on Tuesday to introduce the first Macs based on Intel chips six months ahead of schedule: a speedy, flat-screen iMac and a slim, high-end notebook with a new name — the MacBook.