It seems that you could sum it up by saying it is the power of the internet decentralized, after the dot com crash. It is essentially users controlling the data rather than the large companies.
The transition from 1.0 to 2.0 involves "the creation of a platform rather than an application." Netscape is an example of a Web 1.0 company that didn't make it through the crash. They were about developing client side applications whereas Google are a platform "living in the space between browser and search engine" providing information to the user and giving them the power to create themselves.
In Web 2.0 every client is a server. A good example of this was Napster. "The more popular the file, in fact, the faster it can be served, as there are more users providing bandwidth and fragments of the complete file. the service automatically gets better the more people use it." Ingenious.
There's an implicit "architecture of participation, a built-in ethic of cooperation, in which the service acts primarily as an intelligent broker, connecting the edges to each other and harnessing the power of the users themselves."
So it is that the most important factor in all of Web 2.0 is data—massive amounts of information about users, products and services—and it's the quality of this that sets apart one Web 2.0 company from another. "Database management is a core competency of Web 2.0 companies."
I've recently been thinking about the transference of power in the 21st century. All these big companies either seem to be dying because we see they are only interested in themselves, or they are thriving because their power is given away to the end user? And what's better than that? If someone tells you what to do or asks you what you want? No doubt that because Google think about their business from the clients perspective, the way they run their business is probably the same. I hear they have custom offices, cafes and swimming pools on site, games rooms, like going to work is like going to play! No wonder they get so many applications to work there!
I like this analogy between the two: "Microsoft's business model depends on everyone upgrading their computing environment every two to three years. Google's depends on everyone exploring what's new in their computing environment every day."
The future looks incredible. "What applications become possible when our phones and our cars are not consuming data but reporting it? Real time traffic monitoring, flash mobs, and citizen journalism are only a few of the early warning signs of the capabilities of the new platform."
- Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability
- Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them
- Trusting users as co-developers
- Harnessing collective intelligence
- Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service
- Software above the level of a single device
- Lightweight user interfaces, development models, AND business models
The article talks about "customer self-service and data management that reaches out to the edges of the web and not to just the center, to the long tail and not just the head". It seems that power in the hands of the people is much more powerful than power in the hands of the company.
The transition from 1.0 to 2.0 involves "the creation of a platform rather than an application." Netscape is an example of a Web 1.0 company that didn't make it through the crash. They were about developing client side applications whereas Google are a platform "living in the space between browser and search engine" providing information to the user and giving them the power to create themselves.
In Web 2.0 every client is a server. A good example of this was Napster. "The more popular the file, in fact, the faster it can be served, as there are more users providing bandwidth and fragments of the complete file. the service automatically gets better the more people use it." Ingenious.
There's an implicit "architecture of participation, a built-in ethic of cooperation, in which the service acts primarily as an intelligent broker, connecting the edges to each other and harnessing the power of the users themselves."
This is some brilliant thinking. It's no wonder why the internet has grown so fast in such a short space of time.
"The central principle behind the success of the giants born in the Web 1.0 era who have survived to lead the Web 2.0 era appears to be this, that they have embraced the power of the web to harness collective intelligence."
Companies really don't need to advertise anymore. ""Viral marketing," that is, recommendations propagating directly from one user to another" are enough to draw customers to the product. You can almost make the case that "if a site or product relies on advertising to get the word out, it isn't Web 2.0."
"The central principle behind the success of the giants born in the Web 1.0 era who have survived to lead the Web 2.0 era appears to be this, that they have embraced the power of the web to harness collective intelligence."
Companies really don't need to advertise anymore. ""Viral marketing," that is, recommendations propagating directly from one user to another" are enough to draw customers to the product. You can almost make the case that "if a site or product relies on advertising to get the word out, it isn't Web 2.0."
So it is that the most important factor in all of Web 2.0 is data—massive amounts of information about users, products and services—and it's the quality of this that sets apart one Web 2.0 company from another. "Database management is a core competency of Web 2.0 companies."
I've recently been thinking about the transference of power in the 21st century. All these big companies either seem to be dying because we see they are only interested in themselves, or they are thriving because their power is given away to the end user? And what's better than that? If someone tells you what to do or asks you what you want? No doubt that because Google think about their business from the clients perspective, the way they run their business is probably the same. I hear they have custom offices, cafes and swimming pools on site, games rooms, like going to work is like going to play! No wonder they get so many applications to work there!
I like this analogy between the two: "Microsoft's business model depends on everyone upgrading their computing environment every two to three years. Google's depends on everyone exploring what's new in their computing environment every day."
The future looks incredible. "What applications become possible when our phones and our cars are not consuming data but reporting it? Real time traffic monitoring, flash mobs, and citizen journalism are only a few of the early warning signs of the capabilities of the new platform."
So here are the seven characteristics of a Web 2.0 proficient company:
- Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability
- Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them
- Trusting users as co-developers
- Harnessing collective intelligence
- Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service
- Software above the level of a single device
- Lightweight user interfaces, development models, AND business models
Thanks for u r information
ReplyDeleteits very useful