Wednesday, October 18, 2006

What Is Web 2.0?

In the old days (1996-2003), I used to waste time at work reading stuff on the internet.

Now I waste time at work writing stuff on the internet.

And as far as I'm concerned, that's the difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0.


UPDATE: Then LC drew my attention to this, which, together with its 200+ comments, explains it all much better.

14 comments:

cello said...

Now that is usdeful. I realise that I used 'Web 2.0' in a recent letter quite gratuitously without totally understanding it but in a feeble attempt to look informed.

Glad you love TV, P. I love the internet very, very much. It makes me sad that people feel these two are mutually exclusive,
when they should really be each other's best pal.

Of course there's loads of shit on telly, but I'm sure you wouldn't opine that everything on YouTube is of high value.

I am pondering your problem of how to find the 'good' TV ie the stuff you will like. My 'good' stuff includes lots of operas and gardening so word of mouth/mouse doesn't always work. Sky already knows what you like watching and could recommend stuff to you in Amazon fashion , or even make your PVR record it remotely. But they think that would freak people out right now. Stick to a few trusted channels or use a preview service that you trust, like the Guardian Guide.

patroclus said...

Ooh, so much to debate!

No one really knows what 'Web 2.0' means, and most people (apart from venture capitalists and bandwagoneering dotcom-style entrepreneurs) hate the term, because the Web (and the way people use it) just evolves - it doesn't have discrete versions.

To me it just means that these days I can publish stuff on the internet without needing any technical knowledge, but to other people it means totally different things.

I don't think that TV and the internet are mutually exclusive. My argument (which appropriately enough we seem to be discussing via all possible media at the moment - perhaps we should book ourselves a slot on Newsnight Review as well!) is that:

a) people are starting to watch television on machines that are not television sets, and in formats (e.g. DVDs) that are not traditional, as-transmitted television.

b) people are starting to create and distribute their own multimedia content, rather than simply consume the output of the entertainment industry, because they now have access to a means of production, a means of distribution and (controversially)an audience that they did not have before, and

c) consequently, the nature of what constitutes 'television' and 'television watching' is changing, and the TV industry - or more specifically, the advertising industry - is having to keep up with that, which it does seem to be doing anyway, so I think we're all in agreement really.

And I heartily agree that YouTube is full of rubbish, but at least you can search it for stuff you like. I can't do that on my TV set. Actually I never look at things on YouTube either, but that's because I have a personal aversion to moving images - I like text. But let's not get into that :-)

I don't have a PVR, so Sky can't recommend anything to me, but I will stick with the Guardian Guide.

Phew.

I've just thought of 1,000 more things I wanted to say as well, but I'd better stop there!

Spinsterella said...

I don't even know how to pronounce web 2.0

Do you have to say "web-two-point-zero"?

Or is it just "web two"??

Billy said...

Writing stuff on the internet rather than reading it is probably an improvement.

tom l said...

beautifully succinct summation - up until now I really had no idea what "Web 2.0" was. Thanks!!

BiScUiTs said...

Ah I see! I understand now. The 'people who make up names' should probably try finding something to name first, rather than coming up with a new term and then trying to find out what it means. Haha.

Anonymous said...

Web 1.0 I found intimidating and frustrating and stayed away,
web 2.0 I find refreshing and welcoming and I jumped in. That's the difference in my mind anyway.

I vote cello and patroclus set up a permanent TV vs internet blog I think we need a permanent place to talk about this interesting stuff.

Anonymous said...

very glad to have you back madam...

very glad indeed x

Tim Footman said...

Spin: call them WEBIO and WEBZO.

patroclus said...

Spin: it's all about user participation in the Web 2.0 world, so you can pronounce it however you want. I say 'web two dot oh'.

Or alternatively: 'Web two dot oh for fuck's sake how wanky does all this sound?'

Realdoc: I think that me and cello are actually on the same listings page, singing from the same stylesheet, etc.

And WEBIO and WEBZO definitely need their own comic.

Billy said...

I call it WEB 2: THIS TIME IT'S SLIGHTLY MORE INTERACTIVE AND MUCH EASIER TO PUBLISH CONTENT WITHOUT SHEDLOADS OF TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE.

but that's just me.

Loganoc said...

"web mark two" maybe?
Anyway: Yay, you're back!

Spinsterella said...

I was talking about 'webio' and 'webzo' all day at work yesterday, thanks Tim.

People were looking at me really oddly, becaus I guess they hadn't realised that I was so super internet-literate, what with me not being able to operate my mobile phone and everything...

richard said...

Web 2.0 actually means the end of real-life social interaction. Nobody will be arsed to go out because everything will be streamed, even gigs. The only folk going out will be those of my generation who can remember what it was like before remote controls. Wait a couple of months and there will be a "press red button to applaud" feature. It's actually quite scary.