What Is Web 2.0 ? --by Tim O'Reilly (六)

Questions or comments for Tim about this article? Ask them here.
You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a talkback.

Showing messages 1 through 137 of 137.

• Nice article......
  2007-11-01 04:40:34  MIracleStudios-webdesigncompany [Reply | View]
  
  
  I was here to understand the intricacies Web 2.0.
  
  As MIracleStudios (www.miraclestudios.in) is planning to launch Web 2.0. services to its clients.
  
  All in all it was a great read
  
  
  VIki

• Web 2.0 for Internet Entrepreneurs
  2007-10-27 01:38:12  WizzardofBuzz [Reply | View]
  
  
  Web 2.0 has evolved in the two years since this article which is looking at the subject from a macro view and the evolution of tech. My take is that Web 2.0 is about people being able to express themselves, more fully, more powerfully, and playfully. Specifically, the evolution of "social marketing" is an interesting development. I get into it in my blog: web2.0magic.net . . .
  How to use web 2.0 tech to get your message out.

• Web 2.0 - useful to me??
  2007-10-22 09:25:56  michaelfarnham [Reply | View]
  
  
  How would web 2.0 benefit my website
  http://XmasDVD.com
  
  If I can take advantage of some Web 2.0'ability I would like to.
  
  Please post suggestions here.
  Thanks!

• Another example of Web 2.0
  2007-10-17 00:42:17  Jimmy_comment [Reply | View]
  
  
  Web 1.0 game provider is providing the game software for the players. Even if the interactive can be multi-players, it is more a packaged software.
  
  Web 2.0 should consider to provide a platform for the players to play eg. Poker or Majong, as a service, then we should consider of the business service of providing a forum enabling the players (participants), the game/gambling hoster (who can set the rules) to setup any games.

• Google's breakthrough?
  2007-09-28 00:14:21  smaaps [Reply | View]
  
  
  First of all, this article was very nice to read.
  
  There is one thing though, that I do not fully agree with:
  
  "Google's breakthrough in search, which quickly made it the undisputed search market leader, was PageRank, a method of using the link structure of the web rather than just the characteristics of documents to provide better search results."
  
  I remember the day a colleague at work told me about this new web search called "goggle" or something like that. When I finally found the site and tried the search there were 3 things that made me stuck with google.
  
  1) It was very fast.
  2) It was very fast.
  3) The first page was simply a logo, a search field, two buttons and three or four links. Not like yahoo, msn, fireball, etc. where the whole screen was filled with links and images and you had to scroll far down.
  
  At the beginning the search results were not a lot better than those of the other search engines, but they were definitely not worse. And it was very, very fast.

• Final Thesis
  2007-09-13 05:41:26  Ollie83 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Hello,
  
  first I have to say that grat article you have witten. Thanks for that.
  
  I am doing my final thesis an the topis is as follows:
  
  "WEB 2.0 AND ITS UTILIZATION IN THE INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL COMMUNICATION OF THE PUBLICLY LISTED COMPANIES IN FINLAND"
  
  I have narrowed the topic by using turnover as a criteria.
  
  I would like to ask you few questions if that is okay with you? I will email you if you give me the permission. Don't want to bother you with unwanted e-mails.
  
  Thanks,
  
  Olli from Finland
• Final Thesis
  2007-10-03 03:42:40  Karunjay [Reply | View]
  
  
  Hi ollie83
  
  can u suggest me how to write Thesis since i am final year student of master of Engineering. If it is possible,can u provide me the soft copy of your Thesis report.
  
  Thanking You
  Karunjay
  India

• Referred to your article
  2007-09-11 08:51:15  spetersen [Reply | View]
  
  
  Your article on Web 2.0 serves as a definitional resource for me and has helped me to understand the principals of Web 2.0. The comparison chart and Web As A Platform map are particularly useful.
  
  I referenced your name today in an entry on my company's blog, tying Web 2.0 to the real estate industry. Please view the entry here: http://onboardllc.com/OnBlog/.
  
  Thanks again for writing such a thorough, easy to understand piece on the direction of the Web.
  
  Also, do you have trackback links?
  
  Sarah Petersen
  OnBoard LLC

• More Examples of Next Generation Software?
  2007-08-24 22:41:27  kcurry [Reply | View]
  
  
  MapQuest -> Google Maps
  online communities -> social networks
  postal address -> geocode
  network backbone -> data and services backbone
  
  3rd Generation?
  personal web sites -> blogging -> personal publishing

• Hi Tim
  2007-08-17 15:09:32  Ingenesist [Reply | View]
  
  
  Not to stray too far from the subject but in financial circles knowledge is tangible only within the constructs of a legal entity such as a corporation. With the convergence of Web 2.0 applications, at what point does knowledge become tangibel (tradeable, financed, capitalized, insureable) outside of the corporate structure. Also, Banks enjoy a multiplier effect - that is, thay can lend the same 100 dollars out 5-7 times as long as they maintain some reserve to service the account. At what point would a multiplier effect on knowledge become the rule rather than the exception?
• Hi Tim
  2007-09-03 15:36:00  Richard_2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  The multiplier effect of bank lending is something of an illusion: there is only one real '100 dollar' - the others are just paper promises dependent on rather risky cycles, as seen in the current sub-prime mortgage lending fiasco. Knowledge on the other hand - or information or data - can be copied endlessly. That makes it a rather more interesting & potentially valuable resource, it least to the altruistic, than resources such as labour, capital and finance.

• But what about???
  2007-08-04 14:41:20  Dakz [Reply | View]
  
  
  Great article...but what about when I cannot be connected? Gmail is great, but if I don't have a connection I can't do anything with it. I'm trying to find a class of lightweight apps that can perform basic operations and then be web aware when I am back online. Has anyone done anything with that? I can think of lots of applications that today exist as clients that could or should be built with Web 2 tech but they have to provide me some basic off line functions. I should at least be able to author an email and read the email from my last connection while off line.
• But what about???
  2007-08-20 10:21:24  david.fm [Reply | View]
  
  
  Try an iPhone -- it connects you with all of these things and more thru AT&T Edge service -- no wireless internet cafe required.
• But what about???
  2007-08-05 11:16:36  steveflex [Reply | View]
  
  
  i am jord but how can a student benefit from web 2 its it for important people

• Regarding implementing Web 2.0
  2007-07-23 03:51:37  Rahul.Pareek [Reply | View]
  
  
  Hi Tim,
  
  This is rahul. I want to implement web 2.0 in my preexisting, asp based web site. Can you implement web 2.0 on an asp driven website or I have to migrate to higher version like .net. What are the main features of an web 2.0 implemented site???
• Regarding implementing Web 2.0
  2007-09-22 00:08:49  Mirai_Solutions_Phil [Reply | View]
  
  
  ASP is much like PHP and is perfectly capable of generating dynamic content for a Web 2.0 website. To be a Web 2.0 website, the content on your website must be "live", meaning the content is always changing based upon user interaction or other data changes. You will likely need to implement a database and connect to that data source to provide the dynamic content. There are many examples and tutorials out there to help you learn how to connect to different database types. The simple place to start might possibly be at http://www.w3schools.com/ado/ado_intro.asp
  Regards,
  Phil Kanaby

• Web 2.0 Dissertation
  2007-07-09 15:24:47  Emmorey [Reply | View]
  
  
  What a fascinating and useful article. I am currently creating a Welsh translation web-site for my Cardiff Uni dissertation, and I would like to implement Web 2.0 technologies within the site, and also to study the impact and various definitions of "Web 2.0". This site has been an excellent starting point and provides many useful links and examples. Would I have permission to quote from the site, obviously citing all quotes to you, Tim O'Reilly, at the correct URL? Also, do you have any personal suggestions of how I could use Web 2.0 in regard to my site? I could also include these suggestions in my dissertation. I am now even more excited about my project! Regards, Emma Garland
• Web 2.0 Dissertation
  2007-08-01 05:02:38  WEB2.0Dissertation [Reply | View]
  
  
  Hi, Hope you ok. I am doing MSc E Commerce from Westminster University and writing thesis "What is web2.0 and its impact on electronic commerce industry" So i was wondering may be we can discuss further on these issues so can you please contact me on [e-mail]
  Thanks
  Regards
  Moh

• For eduactors
  2007-06-25 12:40:20  willsparks [Reply | View]
  
  
  I am a Masters (in Education) Student. I fear incorporating the use of these applications in my classrooms for fear of Bullying. I understand that perhaps you come from a business background, however how do these systems self monitor in a social context so that there is a limit to malicious content?
• For eduactors
  2007-07-11 08:36:13  Amirhossein [Reply | View]
  
  
  I think much of the ideas presented here has something to do with "collaborative learning"
  I am a masters of telecom eng. and currently working on developing intranet applications for the purpose of people learning from people in teaching english as a second language. Try the book linked by Barabasi. It might give you some ideas about the social aspect of the concept web 2.0.
• For eduactors
  2007-08-31 00:47:21  pageboyz [Reply | View]
  
  
  Im am surely interested in your research regarding collaborative learning.
  
  (Search 4 my Facebook profile: Andries du Plessis)
  
  Web 2.0 and the potential for collaboration across vast networks of practice bring about an interesting twist to Wenger's idea of a community of practice.
  
  Peer-to-peer learning, collaborative learning etc etc are all interesting concepts and with enabling technologies are revitilising the principles of this type of learning.
  
  Would love to hear from you.
  
  A
• For eduactors
  2007-06-29 09:43:44  WingMingChan [Reply | View]
  
  
  I used to teach Chinese, linguistics, and programming (Java, C++, and so on). I would like to share some ideas:
  

  
  
  • Bullying is inevitable. This is quite like hacking in the technology world. But you can sometimes turn a good hacker to a good programmer. Invite the one who bullies to do something constructive, to help out.
  
  
  • Expose everything under the sun. When adopting the open source principle in the classroom, every move made by everybody is closely monitored by other students. (This of course includes the instructor.) When someone does something good, it will get appreciation. You should encourage this kind of constructive attitude toward other people. When someone does something bad, everybody can be the judge. The students just need to be encouraged to participate.
  
  
  • You be the coordinator, not the controller. You don't monitor all activities. The students do. You don't provide instructions, at least not explicitly all the time, but suggestions, hints, and guidelines. Let the students, at least every now and then, decide what they want. Just help them see what is best for them.
  
  
  • Work toward a goal. No matter who is the boss, what atmosphere you want to create, you must have a goal, a target for each class. That is the end. You just need to work out the means to get to that end. Make sure everybody understand what they are trying to achieve.
  
  
  • You can designate the boss role to students. Ask them to work out a plan for a class. (Do that in advance.) But don't do any personal favor. Take turns and assign the role to different students at different times.
  
  
  • Occasionally, you need to remind the students that you are still the final judge. When things get out of hand, you still need to step in and do something. But do this tactfully. When there is a fight (not necessarily in the literal sense), don't take side. Stay calm, and involve everybody to work together for a solution.
  
  
  • Keep a few secret weapons up in your sleeves. For example, you can pull a student aside and talk to him/her in private. Understand their problems and help them find a solution. Talk to the parents. Seek help with authorities.
  
  
  • Kids, at least some of them, are more intelligent than they seem. Sometimes you just need to trust them, and apprciate them. You will be surprised.
  
  
  • There are so many good teachers out them. Learn from them. Observe, if there are opportunities, how they handle different problems. But remember, students can be good teachers too. Be humble enough to be a student yourself.
  
  
  • Just two more buzzwords: be flexible, and open-minded. You do your work, and let the students do theirs.
  
  
• For eduactors
  2007-09-19 06:47:33  tobywun [Reply | View]
  
  
  That is some really terrific advice! Thankyou for sharing that.

• Web 2.0 and shareholder value?
  2007-06-19 04:01:23  Schmoranz [Reply | View]
  
  
  Dear Mr. O'Reilly,
  
  I have a short question:
  How can Web 2.0-investments of companies like google or News Corp. raise their shareholder value?
  
  Best regards from Cologne in Germany
  
  Alexander Schmoranz

• web 3.0 's Effect on web 2.0
  2007-06-19 01:17:54  Syth [Reply | View]
  
  
  I have read in some IT magazine that web 3.0 is coming. it is not just the higher version of 2.0 . It is another development on web architecture giving more meaning for content called semantic web, is going to enable computer programs to interact with people and websites.
  
  I think there should be a parallel development on both in coming years.
  
  Thanks and Regards
  Syth
  http://www.sajithmr.com
• web 3.0 's Effect on web 2.0
  2007-07-11 08:24:37  Amirhossein [Reply | View]
  
  
  I do not know what the web 3.0 will be,
  But what I am sure, at the moment is that whatever it may mean (probably a higher dimension in human evolution), it will eventually happen through web 2.0;
  
  In other words, instead of trying to come up with innovations [thinking inside the box(web 1.0), we should do our best focusing on creating more convenient networks and environments for others to make desired changes (web 2.0 thinking)

• The end of the Software Release Cycle?
  2007-06-04 22:00:24  mcgmatt [Reply | View]
  
  
  What web have you been surfing for the past 15 years? Even in what I call Web 1.0 and you must call Web 0.0 (the static web with Lynx, Mosaic, and little to no user interaction), the web changed as it needed to change, never in versions.
  
  The fact that flickr deploys changes every half hour is unsurprising. If I worked on only one site all day long every day, I would do the same, whether it was me in 1997 or 2007.
  
  If anything, the Software Release Cycle is more prevalent now than it's ever been. ASP.NET brings hardcore C++ developers into the world of the web, and some of them are so unfamiliar with the web that they build installers to deploy websites. Funny, yet sad.
  
  The word "beta" has caught on because it bears the connotation that if the site breaks, it's not the developers' fault for not testing properly, it's the users' fault for not exposing the bug earlier. Brilliant.
• The end of the Software Release Cycle?
  2007-06-12 17:47:19  -herbO- [Reply | View]
  
  
  I guess I am an old dog. No better, make that a very old, old dog. I used the internet (ARPANET) the first time in 1974. By then it was just three years old. I was with the WWMCCS (World Wide Military Command and Control System) then working out of Germany. I would connect (guess the term today is remote access) to other sites around the world running various applications generating reports using our database and their resources during their slow periods (while they were in their beds sleeping). The term then was �time-sharing� (think this could be coming back with the creation of �server farms�). Big processes were broken out to the other sites, returning their results for assembling into a final report or further processing to create a final product. It had wideband, encrypted communication on dedicated communication circuits. I wonder if this could be in the Guinness Record Book for the largest intranet at that time. No, the term intranet was an unknown then, but it appears the internet developed from the intranet and not the other way around. It was here I volunteered to take on the job managing the data with a title of Operator-Analyst (today�s title is DBA). Now everyone confesses to be a DBA after one execution of �CREATE TABLE.�
  
  
  
  I left that command in 1980, but rejoined it in 1983 under its new longer name. The abbreviated name was WIC. It was an acronym, with part of its definition already an acronym. The �W� represented WWMCCS, and IS was the representation of Information System. During this hitch, I volunteered to be the administrator for a computer mail system (email) as no one knew what the job title required. Training was conducted by BBN (Bolt, Beranek and Newman), the project developers. The instructors/trainers were all MIT graduates. I got a very good UNIX education.
  
  
  
  Anyway, how can there be version assignments, with such fast changing landscapes. How or when or what triggers the move to the next increment value before and after the �dot?� The community would be better off as to a timeline form to document it like that at http://www.computerhistory.org/exhibits/internet_history/. Identify the Web as Web2004, Web2005, etc. If you notice, Microsoft uses the decade value for its releases. This way there can be no argument over a silly dot and the numbers surrounding it.
  
  

• Web 3.0
  2007-04-26 17:59:28  techidude [Reply | View]
  
  
  So how would you define web 3.0 There are many advance user generated content sites like ZCubes (www.zcubes.com) that allows users to create stuff in a very unstructered and powerful fashion. Do they claim right to be a web 3.0 site.
• Web 3.0
  2007-05-08 10:26:49  Pablo_82 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Semantic Web claims to leverage the Web and is often being reffered as Web 3.0

• Thanks, but...
  2007-04-07 17:30:26  DMBlackthorn [Reply | View]
  
  
  I think that proper terminology is very important.
  A lot of people on the Interweb find this web 2.0 a bit confusing. Why can't we just call it like it is - the Interweb?

• Wrong term - Stop using it
  2007-03-26 10:04:09  meshman [Reply | View]
  
  
  Please stop with the Web 2.0 term. It is entirely inaccurate.
  
  The Web is not the content. The web is a delivery platform for content. So by declaring Web 2.0 (how nice of you to do that for everyone), you're implying there is a whole new level of technology for what we call The Web.
  
  There isn't. We're still using IPv4. We're still using HTML, XML, javascript, PHP and every language we've always known for web development. I understand what "Web 2.0" is but the term is completely wrong for the above reason.
  
  Web 2.0 will be IPv6 and a host of converged, universal development, transport and hosting technologies. Not some social networking paradigm made up by people that don't understand how the Internet works.
  
  How is Internet banking Web 2.0? When will Microsoft come up with the "Web 2.0 Server"? Will there be a Web 2.0 version of Apache? No, because social networking and user rating aren't about the technology. They exist because of the technology.
  
  Those of us that actually work with the technology supported by this new paradigm are smacking our collective foreheads. You're holding up an apple and calling it an orange. Plus to make it worse, you're being applauded for it by people equally as ignorant about what the Internet is. Apples are not oranges. This social networking paradigm is not the next 'version of the web'. The term World Wide Web is universal. That which the term Web 2.0 refers to, is not.
  
  I don't mean this as a troll, I'm speaking from decades of experience in this technology. What you describe is NOT Web 2.0. Please stop corrupting what we all know to be standards and call it something else.
  
• Wrong term - Stop using it
  2007-09-22 01:06:35  Mirai_Solutions_Phil [Reply | View]
  
  
  The use of a "web browser" has solidified that the content is in fact "the web" in the minds of the general public. But not to worry, because the term "internet" generally still refers to all the technological innovations that bring the content of the web to our displays. IPv6 and future developments to the internet will just need to be called Internet 2.0 instead.
  
  Web 2.0 isn't just social networking style websites, it's about data and content that is always changing and always growing. I tend to look more along the lines of the way the data is handled and modified rather than the content itself, and that has changed. If PHP was used to simply output a dynamic HTML page, the content of that page would remain the same without something to make it change. When PHP is connected to a constantly changing data source like a database, that content can be modified on the fly by whoever is handed the access to it. I believe that level of interactivity seperates the new ways of browsing the web from the old.
  
  Regards,
  Phil Kanaby
• Wrong term - Stop using it
  2007-04-30 08:19:30  NickC4555 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Web 2.0 is about people, not technology. Sure it needs innovative technologies to facilitate it, but they are just in a support role. meshman's post is the last gasp of the old technical guard who don't get that the web has been rested from them and is now a tool for communitities not techies.
  
  As was pointed out so eloquently in the Web 2.0 feature on this site, those of us with "decades of experience in this technology" are at a disadvantage, because of the baggage we enter the new world carrying. The winners in this race are already proving to be those organisations that have been designed from the ground up around the new paradigm.
• Wrong term - Stop using it
  2007-04-05 18:31:45  sirmeili [Reply | View]
  
  
  I have to completely disagree, though I buy "Application 2.0" for my computer, it is most probably still written in the same language and requires the same platform to run on (windows,linux,mac,etc), much like web 2.0 requires the same technology (HTML,JS,CSS,etc) to run.
  
  The idea of "Web 2.0" is purely in the implementation of the technologies available, much like when an application increases its version when it finds new ways to implement new features using the same language as the previous version.
  
  And if its not "Web 2.0" I'd like to know what you call it. The web today is definitely not the same web it was 5, 10, or 15 years ago. It is ever evolving even if the backbone technology stays the same.
• Wrong term - Stop using it
  2007-04-03 14:28:13  rimp [Reply | View]
  
  
  web is the web as you say
  and 2.0 means second in order NOT second version its just a second heading in a long list of changes :)
• Wrong term - Stop using it
  2007-03-27 02:59:13  STaylor [Reply | View]
  
  
  Oh come on! I think you are being overpedantic. Whilst you are no doubt correct in a narrow techincal sort of a way, we need some sort of phrase to describe the new ways in which the web is now being used.
  
  Everyone knows what web 2.0 means and they realise it's not actually a new technology, but rather a new use of it.
  
  The term is now pretty well established and I very much doubt that your dislike of it will change anything.

• Web 2.0 Sites
  2007-03-18 11:56:09  Amazedsaint [Reply | View]
  
  
  A comprehensive list of web 2.0 site are available at
  
  http://web2trends.blogspot.com/search/label/Web%202.0%20Directory
• wikiArt ??
  2007-07-11 15:31:16  Amirhossein [Reply | View]
  
  
  If technology can have a collaboration-oriented meaning why can't Art, music, thoughts and so forth.
  
  If we want to start thinking outside the box of web 1.0, we should shift towards collaborative attidutes rather than individual ones.
  
  we can have collaborative arts as well, a shared inspiration. What if people are to make a drawing rather than a person (isn't that what wisdom of crowds is about?) or can people contribute melodies to a music track to make a masterpiece??
  
  I am currently giving some thoughts into this, and I am very open to any talks on this. please let me know what you think...

• Translation
  2007-03-06 16:08:04  LTC [Reply | View]
  
  
  Hi Tim,
  
  This article can be read in 7 different languages. Does the translation occur dynamically when I selected a language or they were translated and stored in those languages.
  My reason is I am researching for good, efficient translator which will work just like on this article but dynamically.
  Appreciate your feed back.
  
  Lan Tran Cao
  New York City / Viet Nam

• security and enterprise
  2007-03-05 17:33:36  mattburlew [Reply | View]
  
  
  I love the concept of quality web-based software as a service- however, there are legit security concerns here related to enterpise. Do I want my company's confidential emails stored on google servers? I am not as excited about storing or sending proprietary or federally regulated information outside of my network without absolute control over the protocols it is delivered through or personally holding the lock and key to its storage. I would like to see this addressed in more detail.

• phone apps
  2007-03-03 13:09:05  summer_s06 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Do you consider phone app as web 2.0? For example an app that allows you to preview/download simple ringtones but that displays ads while processing the request is more than a simple software. You mentioned that web 2.0 goes beyond PCs but the itunes example still somehow relates to a PC. Can such phone app be called web 2.0?

• Applications v/s Toys
  2007-02-21 23:11:16  once:technologies [Reply | View]
  
  
  It may appear to be an extreme position, but with a few notable exceptions, most 'Web 2.0 applications' seem to be marginally more than cute software toys.
  
  My company - once:technologies - develops fully-functional business process applications entirely within a browser-based application development environment.
  
  We are interested to hear of others operating in this space. All of the examples we've seen fit into two categories
  
  

  • Those that create really cute 'toys', not without their place but hardly what could be considered as serious applications.
  
  
  • Complex technologies that rely on professionals (read expensive) with database, server and web design capabilities.

  
  
  We would like to collaborate with others developing serious web application technology that does not rely on high levels of IT capability.

• hardware
  2007-02-21 17:08:21  invex [Reply | View]
  
  
  we need to re desgine the systems to work with new hardware that works with web 2.0 we can't rely on old software even if its windows vista. because as it may seem the companys benifit from content ipod worked for music. a web developement machine for different sites every site gets there own hard ware and we can boom economy prices by teaming major corps together like apple and microsoft and sun micosystems together. to create a small device that may use cards to do different things or get diifferent info running on aaa or AA batteries. we need to get rid of the rechargers or create hospital safe batteries and hospital safe hardware those who really need internet are in hospitals those who stay over night and if they have to stay overnight want there info and they can't.
  and the programers have to figure out an out of the box idea for different programing language for each hard ware.

• Utilizing Web 2.0
  2007-02-09 03:35:11  Gigahaw [Reply | View]
  
  
  Great article. We are beginning our 2008 strategy planning (yeah, really) and these types of discussions are going on all over our office. I work for a Fortune 500 manufacturing company interested in staying ahead of our competitors via the web. We cannot sell direct in most cases but instead generate demand via the web. We have some interesting flexible design web apps that enable our visitors to interact with our products. Business users want to blog to share and get feedback but I have been warning them that once they start they have to keep at it or it will fail. They are very concerned with negative feedback they might receive. Can you speak to how large companies are working with the need to reach out using blogs and the tension of user comments? Also, can you provide some insight into how larger companies are using Web 2.0 for their businesses?
• Utilizing Web 2.0
  2007-02-09 07:24:37  timoreilly [Reply | View]
  
  
  Gigahaw --
  
  Just look at some of the celebrity CEO bloggers. Jonathan Schwartz at Sun is a great example. He wields it as a powerful marketing tool, getting exposure for his ideas without spending money on advertising. If you have top execs who are willing to speak for the company, this is huge.
  
  But even mid-level people can have a big impact if they are given the freedom to speak their minds (especially if they have useful insights.) Look at the various google blogs -- Matt Cutts on search engine optimization, for example. He's the man, or the voice of the man, on this important topic. It allows google to be in conversation with its advertisers and their opponents.
  
  Another thing to remind your management of is a bit of history. Just remind them when all those arguments were used against the personal computer. IT hated and feared PCs. And sure enough, there were gaffes, when people made bad decisions based on flawed spreadsheet formulas. (There was even a suit against Lotus over a couple of those.) But in the end, the value was too great to ignore.
  
  While blogs et al are now only at leading edge companies, eventually they will be everywhere. So it's really a matter of now or later, not whether.
  
  As to other aspects of your post -- I'm very interested in thinking about applications of Web 2.0 to manufacturing. I'd love it if you'd post a URL for your company, so I can look at the apps you have that let customers interact with your products. You can also send me an email -- tim at oreilly.com -- if you don't want to publish that here.

• Webinale 07 @Singapore
  2007-02-01 21:24:18  S&SMedia [Reply | View]
  
  
  Webinale 07 - A Conference For the Next Generation Web
  The Web is in motion! It's about conversations, interpersonal networking, personalization, and individualism. The need for immediacy, interactivity, and community, combined with new and light-weight technologies are changing the social structure of the Web. The Next Generation Web is about getting associated with openness, trust, authenticity and collaboration. Interactivity, new possibilities to connect, social software, usability, and community networking are fast catching up with users. This new buzz is generating fresh and exciting projects. The latest buzzword is Web 2.0, and the event for anyone seeking to stay on top of this buzz is Webinale 2.0!
  More info at www.webinale.com

• How Does Web 2.O pertain to service businesses?
  2007-01-31 07:12:46  echelini [Reply | View]
  
  
  Great Article,
  My question is that all of the companies listed in this article are Internet pure plays (Google, Flikr, etc). What are companies that are not pure plays, but use the Internet to conduct their business, like professional services firms?
• How Does Web 2.O pertain to service businesses?
  2007-01-31 08:21:12  timoreilly [Reply | View]
  
  
  The key web 2.0 principle to think about is "harnessing network effects to create products or services that get better the more people use them."
  
  So, for a service business, how might you harness network effects?
  
  1. Make it easier for people to sample or recommend your services. What is the equivalent of viral distribution for software?
  
  2. Help your customers to network. Is there some P2P or social networking angle to what you do? (In this context, see wesabe.com (http://www.wesabe.com) , which aggregates consumer spending behavior to build data about popular merchants, how people like you spend their money, as well as letting people share information about their experience with a product or service, and support each other in reaching financial goals. Could a service like Wesabe be useful to your customers?) [Disclosure: I am an investor in Wesabe.] Let them annotate, review, and share information about your product or service. (Amazon is a great company to study in this regard. They don't have a single big Web 2.0 competitive advantage like Google or EBay -- they just work harder than anyone else to involve their customers in adding value to their product.)
  
  3. Build services that learn from your customers. If your product requires configuration or business rules established, document and export the corner cases so that it's easier for the second customer who encounters the special situation to use your product or service.
  
  4. Read Kathy Sierra's Creating Passionate Users blog (http://headrush.typepad.com>), and apply her insights.
  
  5. Start your own blog, and follow the principle laid out in The ClueTrain Manifesto that "markets are conversations."
  
  etc. etc.
  
  Study your own product or service, and think about how networked markets can and should affect it.

• great article
  2007-01-27 13:16:30  LisaF [Reply | View]
  
  
  I have a job interview at a "web 2.0" startup next week - I'll definitely use the list to see if they meet the criteria!
  
  Thank you!

• Excellent Article
  2007-01-26 15:58:41  excogitator [Reply | View]
  
  
  Had it coming ..
  Web 2.0 is a phenomenon which is going to drive the next decade of innovations. Promise you that !

• hey, thanks!
  2007-01-26 02:27:56  happiebb [Reply | View]
  
  
  just a quick word of thanks for an excellently written article that answers questions, provides info and stimulates thinking.
• web 2.0 and philosophical issues!
  2007-07-11 15:15:21  Amirhossein [Reply | View]
  
  
  I really appreciat the discussions that was presented in this article and also the user friendly and convenient question-answer pages.
  Thanks again and wish everyone good luck.
  
  I think web 2.0 is really the beginning of a big evolution, not just in buisines etc...
  but also in people's mentalities. Looking at everything from a different perspective redefining [or getting closer to the real meaning of] certain words including "unity", "collaboration", "fairness", "the truth" and "people's rights".

• democratization or divide
  2007-01-17 16:54:56  Badrirag [Reply | View]
  
  
  Tim,
  
  Your article on web 2.0 is a must-read for any existing and aspiring technologist, visionary and entrepreneur. The clarity and the examples are really amazing.
  
  When I wanted to know something about Web 2.0 (sometime y'day afternoon), I thought I may have to spend hours in getting to the core but thanks to your article, I have some understanding pretty fast. Congrats once again.
  
  While it appears that web 2.0 as a platform would foster greater participation of users and facilitate an unprecedented level of user-generated content, the effort required for participation seems staggering and even daunting. Writing a blog is now a child's play but getting it noticed is becoming tougher and in some cases devious too. Add the dimension of constantly engaging people in conversation (if one is astute enough to start one)and it appears to be a full-time job,out of reach of the common man (or the long tails as popularly known).
  
  And as one needs to be update on the latest trends there is a demand for reading other blogs, facilitated by RSS feeds and services like bloglines. I am reminded of the numerous selections I made while signing up for a Yahoo account a few years ago and then was swamped by the tons of emails offering everything under the sun. I then had to literally unsubscribe to most of those offers and sites. I see a similar trend happening in the blogsphere where people generally subscribe to many blogs (will this happen if content was priced, even a pittance?) and then find that the number of unread posts becomes unwieldy. Presto they click on 'Mark all Read' and that is back to square one.
  
  I will take a break now and would really like to have your views.

• Servers
  2007-01-08 15:34:39  tgemberl [Reply | View]
  
  
  How can every downloading computer be a server? Doesn't a server have to be on all the time?
• Servers
  2007-09-23 11:53:39  rakeshraghunath [Reply | View]
  
  
  when evr u r on.. u act as a server... in bit toeernt while downloading.. u will have both downloading and uploading taking place.. thats means when u access a site at that moment u computer also act as server
  

• Web 2.0 Map
  2007-01-07 03:37:12  Luca_at_railsonwave [Reply | View]
  
  
  After looking at this post and related articles I have worked on a map of Web 2.0 concepts and terminology. A complete cloud-view of Web 2.0 galaxy with links to Wikipedia sources. The map is in scalable vector graphics (svg) format.
  
  This is the resulting map:
  http://www.railsonwave.com/assets/2006/12/25/Web_2.0_Map.svg
  
  And this is the original blog post:
  http://www.railsonwave.com/railsonwave/2007/1/2/web-2-0-map
  
  Give me your feedback!
  
  see you,
  Luca.

• Have and Have Not
  2007-01-06 15:26:07  Stephenmcm [Reply | View]
  
  
  My concern is the roughly 30%+ of populations, even 1st world, that are not literate enought to deal with WWW, web 1.0 or web 2.0.
  
  We cannot leave them behind or we will have internecine warfare. What price a PC then?
  
  My challenge is how to engage the least able in our population with the benefits of what you describe. How do we not leave them behind?
  
  Can we utilise the innovation and creativity described to help those less able to move up the food chain?
  
  If not, then we are developing a paradigm of separation that will ultimately do us all no good.
• Have and Have Not
  2007-09-19 08:02:16  tobywun [Reply | View]
  
  
  That is an equitable position but I suspect that convergence will allow a different value system to be placed on new technology. Where it is the use of and access to services that enables revenue to be generated, technology becomes the essential gateway and therefore an acceptable cost to industry, (lets face it, it is the existence of a revenue model which has allowed web 1.0 & now web 2.0 to be exploited so effectively). Take cable TV set top boxes for instance, they give them away! While this still relies on an annualised contract for service provision the parallel is pretty good. Also (very different example) Airline operators collaborate and bear the cost of reservation & inventory data processing via co-owned companies such as Gallileo, the cost is bourn by the customer eventually or the airlines take a hit on profit. (This was as an alternative to small travel agencies having to integrate all airlines data on multiple platforms which would have been unmanageable and prohibitively expensive).
  
  In terms of individuals with few skills � web2.0 can represent who ever generates content, service, access and so on (my understanding is that you refer to the lowest common denominator). Or it can be used to target activity where the greatest revenue exists; and where is the biggest market in the world but amongst the uneducated. Also, Judging by mobile phone text language, there are millions of messages that are sent, received and understood by virtually illiterate people every day. Not left behind at all in this context.
  
  With a heavy heart I believe that this is the down side: as with most technologies/ service platforms that trickle to the masses, they do so because the poor, vulnerable and uneducated are the largest market in the world, not because of an altruistic desire for everyone to keep up. Web 2.0 will not leave them behind but will commoditise them even further in exchange for some funky toys and the ability to participate. I hope I am wrong but each of us is already being used/ targeted as a revenue generating asset and our happy surrender of personal data and behaviour does not give us freedom, it simply takes away our power.
  
  Will Web2.0 be the most accessible and greatest entrepreneurial opportunity we have ever seen, or will it be the clarion call for individuals who are desperate to regain their power in a way that the Communist revolutions could have only dreamed about? I can�t wait to see!
  
  For reference I am a Libertarian Anarchist, I know nothing and filter all I see through my beliefs and experience. Not the most reliable opinion as I am sure you will agree :-)
  

• Quotation
  2007-01-05 06:58:01  Wybourne [Reply | View]
  
  
  I am an equity analyst at Charles Stanley, a private client stockbroker based in London and covering only UK stocks in a number of sectors including tech. I would very much like to draw on your article "What is Web 2.0" . I would propose to include the following: "This note draws heavily, with his permission, on an article publsihed in September 2005 by Tim O'Reilly, an authoritative commentator who coined the phrase Web 2.0 in 2004, and available on http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html?page=1 ."
  
  The note would be sent to our clients. It is also distributed to the press, following which you might get a few queries or hits as they may not be fully up to speed. Which you may or may not welcome!
  
  Kind regards
• Quotation
  2007-01-05 10:53:28  timoreilly [Reply | View]
  
  
  Wybourne, you're more than welcome to do this. Good luck with your piece. (In fact, I'd love it if you'd send me a copy. tim at oreilly dotcom )
• Quotation
  2007-01-08 07:34:39  Wybourne [Reply | View]
  
  
  No problem, will certainly do so.

• Great Artical
  2007-01-04 11:47:19  Silver_Bullet [Reply | View]
  
  
  This is a fantastic article. It really clarifies my own opinions on how the internet has and will continue to revolutionize our lives. The true potential of open source content is still yet to be appreciated as there are generations that will never embrace IT. As time goes by the internet will become an essential part of everyone�s life as it continues to be enriched by all.

• Brazilian Portuguese Translation
  2006-12-29 05:21:42  JulioPreuss [Reply | View]
  
  
  Since there was no Portuguese version of the article yet, I asked a friend to translate it for me and posted it in my blog (http://juliopreuss.com/blog/2006/12/13/o-que-e-a-web-20/) . If anyone else needs it, it can be found at http://juliopreuss.com/blog/2006/12/13/o-que-e-a-web-20/
• Brazilian Portuguese Translation
  2006-12-29 05:23:43  JulioPreuss [Reply | View]
  
  
  Sorry for the double URL... one of them was supposed to be a link :-(

• Nano-marketing is really born !
  2006-12-08 10:07:01  Revgi [Reply | View]
  
  
  Web 2.0 allows the emergence of a new phenomun which I am calling nano-marketing coming directly from the proliferation of nano-publishing tools (blog, flux RSS, Ajax, tag etc�). Have a look in my blog about it http://nano-marketing.viabloga.com
  
  Marketing is completely reshuffled, the enterprise too and all of this because the individual can express himself and put in resonence with the web.
  
  This is a fascinating period: we are not substituting anything with these new free energies and these new tools. For me we are just adding a new layer of complexity with which we have to deal... d�aggregating individuel contents that can be isolated or even diverging. The time when one person could be traited in one piece, in one homogeneous bloc is over� really have a look to what I am observing that�s happening !
  
  Cheers,
  Gil
  
  

• HAVE YOU GOT SOME COMMENT TO MAKE TO WEB2.0
  2006-12-06 11:43:25  AXEL [Reply | View]
  
  
  HI everybody,
  In association with 12 sutendts of a graduate school of management in FRANCE,we create a blog on the web2.0 in wich you've got some informations and few point of view.We try to define the concept...
  I invite you to watch the blog and makes some comments about the topic treated.
  
  LINKS : http://www.at-ethno.com/le_web2_vu_de_clermont_fe/
  Thanks for your time ...

• Turkish Translation
  2006-11-27 12:06:08  buyruk [Reply | View]
  
  
  I've seen that Turkish translation is also missing. I would be happy to make this translation. I am going to start right away as soon as i get the approval.
  
  C'ya!

• Is that an web2.0 website?
  2006-11-23 10:08:51  webblogger [Reply | View]
  
  
  what do you think, it's that a web2.0 website? A blog explore service integrated in a blog:
  
  www.bloxpo.com
  
  Really a don't know what exatly mean web2.0, maybe the new websites people-oriented instead of company-oriented.
  

• Translation problems
  2006-11-10 15:16:54  Susanlulee [Reply | View]
  
  
  This is a great article and it's nice to see that it has been translated into several different languages. The problem is I can hardly understand the Chinese translation, as a native Chinese speaker. It looks like it was translated by machine.
  
  

• Great description
  2006-11-08 23:44:37  caprisco [Reply | View]
  
  
  A very good detailed study and description on the future of web from an overall software industry prespective and its background and transformation. It also shows the shift of customer needs and the development cycle in the IT arena.
  
  Great article overall,
  Girish

• document 28 aka RSS feed
  2006-10-24 06:31:48  kornbrot [Reply | View]
  
  
  NIce description of many web 2.0 constructs
  BUT clicked on RSS feeds and firefox dwonloade a file called '28' without any extention
  
  windows offered me all of my 100 or so applications as possiblities for opening the file
  
  not an enjoyable or intuitive experience!
  
  best
  
  diana kornbrot
  
  seem to have msipelt my name when chosing a screen name , ah wel......

• Its amaing article..
  2006-10-22 12:45:08  Sandeepan [Reply | View]
  
  
  I had a little idea on web 2.0... but not as complete as this article has elaborated...
  It has enlighten me new stuffs...
  

• class
  2006-10-18 13:58:10  jtscooter [Reply | View]
  
  
  This article really helped explain what we're starting to work on in my technology class. Thanks!

• article
  2006-10-17 09:45:13  brynniesan23 [Reply | View]
  
  
  great! It was nice to have a "user friendly" article for someone who is computer illiterate. I appreciate that byou highlighted/shed light on all of the technological advances that many of use daily, that have taken place since the dot com crash.

• Travel and web2.0
  2006-10-12 06:57:29  Travel20 [Reply | View]
  
  
  looking for interested parties in travel and web 2.0.
  
  Mark
• Travel and web2.0
  2007-07-14 03:54:54  Amirhossein [Reply | View]
  
  
  I am interested. Mostly in the architecture behind web 2.0 applications. Currently designing a network logic for education purposed "collaborating learning"
• Travel and web2.0
  2006-10-30 15:20:42  clavis [Reply | View]
  
  
  Hi Mark,
  would be interested. I am working on some projects right now.
  
  Rgds - Armin
• Travel and web2.0
  2006-10-26 11:26:15  brrr [Reply | View]
  
  
  hi mark, i'm interested.I work for a startup in Web2.0 travel...

• Web 2.0
  2006-10-05 00:08:52  ozzie25 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Although not a teckie, I was fascinated by this article and, for once, went through all five pages without getting side-tracked by the links. Admittedly, there was a lot that I didn't attempt to understand, but from not even knowing that Web 2.0 even existed I have graduated to a level where I can talk about it. The article has also given me several ideas for my own business. All credit to you.

• Typo 1.0
  2006-09-30 07:34:15  DeekDeekster [Reply | View]
  
  
  "What's more, both TiVo and iTunes show some budding use of collective intelligence, although in each case, their experiments are at war with the IP lobby's. "
  
  Surely you mean "lobbies"?

• Tim O'Reilly's article from Sept 2005 entitled "What is Web 2.0?"
  2006-08-25 04:03:29  jovialameteur [Reply | View]
  
  
  Fascinating article.
  The summary, expressed as Core competencies of Web 2.0 companies, seemed to me to be referring to companies whose raison d'etre is the internet, rather than companies offering things or services, which in themselves have nothing to do with the internet, and may already been traded for decades if not centuries.
  
  If this was not the intention of the summary, can anyone enlighten me as to where I'm missing the point?
  
  Thanks very much.

• A Missing Feature of Web 2.0
  2006-08-18 05:07:24  Ashraful_Alam [Reply | View]
  
  
  A great feature has been missed from Web 2.0 concept, addition of which make Web 2.0 much more popular and useful. Please consider the following link to know more about it: click here (http://geekswithblogs.net/joycsharp/archive/2006/08/18/88368.aspx) .

• Web Services versus Packaged Software
  2006-08-18 00:52:51  vnyx [Reply | View]
  
  
  While I agree that Web Services have many advantages to traditional packaged software, there is no reason why newly developed packaged software could not use Web Services.
  
  In my opinion, due to inherent problems in Windows, users are reluctant to install package software on there computers for fear that it would harm their system. When I used Windows I felt that fear.
  
  When I switched to Mac OS X, I suddenly found that it was okay to install as many programs as I wanted on the computer without worrying about problems. This was the way it used to be and it made me realize that much of the emphasis on thin-client systems and web services may be in part due to this installation fear in Windows.
  
  The focus today is to make the browser do everything and the challenge is to make the browser measure up to packaged software.
  
  Web 3.0 may be the emergency of packaged software to utilize web services "instead" of a browser, but this if dependent on Windows Vista giving users the freedom to install programs without fear.

• Web 2.0 for Libraries
  2006-08-17 06:21:42  ArvindBhadrashetty [Reply | View]
  
  
  Great Article! How can Web 2.0 be best utilized for libraries and providing information services.
  
  Regards
  Arvind

• Great Article
  2006-08-01 20:41:39  LizWaldner [Reply | View]
  
  
  Cheers from
  Liz Waldner 2.0 :)
  www.lizwaldner.wordpress.com
  

• Jargon, Learning & Examples
  2006-07-09 09:45:59  RayRasmussen [Reply | View]
  
  
  Nice article on Web 2.0, thanks. I would suggest that you add examples. You're using a lot of jargon which goes right by people like me.
  

• china web2.0 list
  2006-07-03 06:32:41  chinaseo [Reply | View]
  
  
  china web2.0 list:
  http://www.weblist.cn
  
  Very good!

• Upgrade to Web 2.1
  2006-05-26 10:25:52  jeremy4321 [Reply | View]
  
  
  I hope to upgrade to web 2.1 so that I don't get sued for trademark violations.
  
  I am referring to O'Reilly's legal department suing someone for trademark infringement on the Web 2.0 trademark.
  
  I really hope that O'Reilly Networks clears up the trademark issues with Web 2.0. If anyone should own the trademark to Web 2.0, it should be Google, since they are the banner carriers for the thing. In any case, I am not a lawyer and I really don't care beyond the incidental humor of lawyers seemingly trying to make a buck.
• Upgrade to Web 2.1
  2006-05-26 12:48:18  jeremy4321 [Reply | View]
  
  
  That said, it must be frustrating to have all this bad press. The quadry as I see it is that you can't have unauthorized JavaOne, Comdex, or CES conventions going around, so why is it a big deal to limit Web 2.0 conferences.
  
  Well, I think the difference is in the title. Comdex, JavaOne, and CES are unique names. Web 2.0 seems like more of a standard, which shouldn't be trademarked. It would seem to me like saying that AJAX or HTML or WWW could be trademarked or something.
  
  I do realize that there are differences but when you take some industry word or phrase and slap a version number on it, expect trademark confusion (e.g. AJAX 2.0, Browser 2.0, Operating System 2.0, Firewall 2.0).

• Cutting Edge
  2006-05-16 09:47:46  inthemiddle [Reply | View]
  
  
  Stumbling upon this site today for the first time and read an excellently written article on WEB2.0.
  
  With so many badly written articles on the web I am so impressed with the accuracy and diversity of the info on this site. Added it to favorites and will be visiting it everyday.
  
• Cutting Edge
  2006-07-19 12:11:52  Eider [Reply | View]
  
  
  Bookmarking this web site is a really bad example of web 2.0.
  
  You should use an rss syndication, although.
  
  []s

• Core Competencies of Web 2.0 companies
  2006-04-29 14:56:12  ibl [Reply | View]
  
  
  It's good to see a succinct description of core
  competencies, so that one can evaluate the claims of folks who use "Web 2.0" for marketing.
  
  Although we don't use the "Web 2.0" label(yet),
  we were gratified to find that our
  Internet Business Logic (R) system appears to have
  the seven core competencies that Tim describes at
  the end of the article.
  
  The system is a sort of Wiki for executable content in *open vocabulary* English. (Not
  yet another controlled vocabulary system). It's online at reengineeringllc.com, and shared use is free.
  
  Please try it, and send feedback to [e-mail].
  Thanks!
  

• German Translation
  2006-04-27 05:30:58  Holyfive [Reply | View]
  
  
  Hello,
  
  I'm currently working on my dissertation about Web Services and Web 2.0 and just read this excellent and directiongiving article. Congratulations.
  
  I noticed that there's no German translation available. May I translate it and publish the German version on my site, of course with a big reference to this original article?
• German Translation
  2006-05-12 01:17:59  janress [Reply | View]
  
  
  Hallo,
  hast du eine �bersetzung ver�ffentlicht? Das w�re super. Danke!
• German Translation
  2006-05-24 13:25:59  Holyfive [Reply | View]
  
  
  Hallo,
  
  ja, die �bersetzung ist fertig. Sie wird hier auch in K�rze offiziell verlinkt. Ist zu finden auf meiner Seite www.twozero.de

• Web2.0 Business Model Health Checker ;-)
  2006-04-26 05:47:21  Alex.Osterwalder [Reply | View]
  
  
  This is an excellent article on a very exciting topic. However, I think many of the current mushrooming web2.0 services and business models should go for a rapid and simple health check ;-)
  
  http://business-model-design.blogspot.com/2006/04/simple-web20-business-model-health.html
  
  Cheers from a "springly" Lausanne, Switzerland, Alex

• Web 2.0 Article
  2006-04-17 06:26:09  ub40 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Its an excellent article by Tim O'Reilly. I am a software developer with relatively little web-based/enabled systems development experience but I can see web 2.0 patterns apply and contributed to the success of traditional device-based distributed applications as well. Interoperability and extensibility of tiers in data dependant (web) applications will ensure dynamic and competitive services based on these applications.

• I think these principles work a lot better if you change the order ..
  2006-04-17 03:05:55  AjitJaokar [Reply | View]
  
  
  Hello all
  I have used these principles extensively in my work on mobile web 2.0 and they are great. However, I have never quite understood why they are in the same order as they are .. In fact, I think the second principle 'Harnessing collective Intelligence' encapsulates all the rest. See my thoughts here
  
  href="http://opengardensblog.futuretext.com/archives/2006/04/tim_o_reillys_s.html"> The seven principles of web 2.0 make a lot more sense if you change the order
  
  Kind rgds
  Ajit
• sorry .. did not enter link in previous post correctly ..
  2006-04-17 03:08:45  AjitJaokar [Reply | View]
  
  
  Here we go again!
  
  Hello all
  I have used these principles extensively in my work on mobile web 2.0 and they are great. However, I have never quite understood why they are in the same order as they are .. In fact, I think the second principle 'Harnessing collective Intelligence' encapsulates all the rest. See my thoughts here
  
  http://opengardensblog.futuretext.com/archives/2006/04/tim_o_reillys_s.html
  
  Kind rgds
  Ajit
  

• The Best of web 2.0
  2006-04-16 11:33:12  toobew [Reply | View]
  
  
  Check out koolweb2.com
  
  Best of Web 2.0 sites ranked by actual users. Drag & drop sites to desired spot in the list and submit rankings. Overall rankings reflect cumulative average of all user submissions. Recommend a new site as well..
  

• Web2.0 Business Model Characteristics
  2006-03-30 07:46:10  Alex.Osterwalder [Reply | View]
  
  
  This evening I sat down to do some brainstorming on Web2.0 Business Model Characteristics. The reflections are based on Tim's great posting and some other texts...
  
  The outcome is a short blogposting with mindmap image at:
  http://business-model-design.blogspot.com/2006/03/web20-business-model-characteristics.html

• Whats inside Web 2.0 ?
  2006-03-14 01:38:08  Anders_Carlsen [Reply | View]
  
  
  In my opinion its "Open Source Movement InSide". Because its the one big factor that have changed the Internet and makes me wants to "put my shares" on Web 2.0.
  
  

• Web2.0 Validator
  2006-02-27 04:21:01  ArjenP [Reply | View]
  
  
  Take nothing for granted! Check out Web2.0 Validator at www.web20validator.com.

• good!`
  2006-02-25 04:10:13  kenyguam [Reply | View]
  
  
  Mr. O'Reilly:
  
  
  excellent article!
  
  
  can I translate it into Chinese�Simplified?
  
  
  
  thank you!
  

• Chinese Translation
  2006-02-09 10:51:20  golim [Reply | View]
  
  
  Hi Jimmy,
  
  Apparently, some folks saved you the trouble of translating. Here is where you can access a Chinese translation of this article:
  http://www.enet.com.cn/article/2005/1122/A20051122474593.shtml
  
  Enjoy,
  Goli
  
  
• Chinese Translation
  2006-06-16 02:57:47  wolongtai [Reply | View]
  
  
  However,this piece of translation is so poor that few people can understand in chinese.
  
• Chinese Translation
  2006-02-10 22:35:48  Jimmy.ZHAO [Reply | View]
  
  
  wow, wonderful, thank you!!

• good introduce
  2006-02-08 19:18:18  Jimmy.ZHAO [Reply | View]
  
  
  Can I translate this article to Chinese?
  
  Jimmy
  
  <link>http://itperson.blogspot.com</link>

• Excellent Matter on Web 2.0
  2006-02-01 00:31:11  EldoItteera [Reply | View]
  
  
  <br/>
  I felt that this is very excellent matter on Web2.0 especially in the scenario where ,most of the products are consumed as services rather than applications or components. Its true that Google has added a lot of new things to Web 2.0.Lets wait and watch for what next!!!
  <br/>
  <br/>
  
  Eldo Itteera
  WeServices Center of Excellence
  Infosys Technlogies Ltd.
  

• Value of software
  2006-01-15 05:37:03  Teun [Reply | View]
  
  
  I took the liberty to take one of Tim's statments from the paragraph 'the web as a platform' and rewrote it to: �The value of the software is proportional to the scale and dynamism of the data it helps to manage, and to the richness of the user experience and the amount of satisfaction it offers.�
  
  I think this 'definition' almost covers the whole Web 2.0 concept. Please comment.
  
  Regards, Teun

• Web 2.0 Article By Tim O'Reilly
  2006-01-08 09:52:47  RFHJ [Reply | View]
  
  
  Slammin' article, Tim! Insightful, lucid, and well cross-referenced to pertinent, supporting articles.
  
  I'm on the "guru" team at my shop and will forward the URL to my CIO and walk up the hall to tell him in person that this is a presentation he NEEDS to see.

• Great article! Need a similar one for comparing Web 1.0 vs 2.0 business models
  2006-01-03 23:30:32  Usha_K [Reply | View]
  
  
  I've spent the last 10 years in the Enterprise Infrastructure (read J2EE, ESBs, BPM) world servicing classic large-scale IT enterprises. I found your article on Web 2.0 quite refreshing and lucid, especially in understanding how our traditional software building, bundling and collaboration paradigms compare to the emerging next-generation software paradigms.
  
  What is additionally interesting for me, however, is to know how the business models compare for Web 1.0 versus Web 2.0 - with respect to the past failures and successes, and emerging next-gen business models.

• Organic Design & Web 2.0
  2006-01-01 19:06:38  iangilman [Reply | View]
  
  
  Beautiful piece!
  
  In one of your sidebars you mention Christopher Alexander's A Pattern Language. I'd like to add that A Pattern Language was published almost 30 years ago, and Christopher Alexander has continued to do interesting work in that time. He has recently published a four-part series entitled The Nature of Order in which he argues for, and presents concepts relevant to, a more organic design process -- something very much in tune with Web 2.0.
  
  A recent post of mine inspired by his and others' work in the area:
  
  http://www.iangilman.com/blog/2005/12/organic-design.php
  

• just a contribution
  2005-12-13 17:43:37  GiselaGiardino [Reply | View]
  
  
  Hi Tim,
  
  I am happy to have come to this article as I was needing to hear from *you* what the concept 'web 2.0' means. It is clear enough to me, despite I may discuss some minor details. But it�s of no importance. I just wanted to contribute here one variable that I consider crucial to understand the whole phenomena, and unless I have overseen it -possible-, it is not mentioned in the article. What made possible the transition from web 1.0 to web 2.0? The changes, widening and improvements on the ISPs, the Internet connections.
  
  It looks like old-school companies and softwares were blind about what looks so obvious today under the lens of web 2.0 builders, this is: The concept of Internet as a Community. Years ago, and not too many this was, I think, envisioned but yet the connectivity of the net couldn�t make it possible.
  
  So software companies and incoming Internet services companies (say Netscape) were driven to build applications intended for users who were not connected to the internet but for about a couple of hours a day and were on poor Dial-up.
  
  The advantages of high-speed connectivity through broadband wi-fi and other(?) :) connections made possible an Internet usage on realtime: phonecalls, chat, downloads, uploads, roleplay games, online creation, blogsphere, p2p share, dommestic computers as servers... and several other possibilities you think of. *There* is where Web 2.0 -I believe- was born as a tangible reality.
  
  Google APIs, Yahoo�s, P2Ps, Napter, BitTorrent, Skype... all of them are based in the fact high-speed connectivity of the critical mass of users. Actually you are mentioning that BitTorrent feeds itself from the share each new user brings.
  
  Maybe this is not treated seriouly as a variable for the business, but I think it is a subtle yet concrete booster of all this massive change.
  
  Ok, enough. I would go further, but I know you understand my point. I just wanted to contribute to the article with this, that I think it is important to understand -too- why Web 1.0 companies had one business model (based on treating each computer as a standalone entity), and why the transition to web 2.0 happens when companies *can* treat computers as nodes from a network -can expect them connected 24/7-.
  
  The difference between a sum of elements and a community of them, is the -level of- connection between them. We are highly interconnected now => We are working on Web 2.0. I *love* that. I am a humble missionary of this movement. Too. Thank you, Tim.
  
  Gisela
  Yer Alieness |-)

• What is Web 2.0
  2005-10-26 05:14:29  perfected [Reply | View]
  
  
  Hi Tim, as I mentioned on radar, I do not believe that Web 2.0 is about user interfaces, but rather making it easier for applications to understand other applications.
  
  For this reason, I dont believe that Flickr is a Web 2.0 application. A Web 2.0 application is one that does a small task and does it well, then it is re-used (a bit like using standard libraries in development). A great example of this is Salesforces' AppExchange.
  
  I describe more of my point of view as well as examples in my post What Does Web 2.0 Mean for Business (http://www.nik.com.au/archives/2005/10/26/what-web-20-means-for-business/)
• What is Web 2.0
  2006-09-03 11:39:26  abulhaaris [Reply | View]
  
  
  "A Web 2.0 application is one that does a small task and does it well, then it is re-used".
  

  
  
  It is interesting that this how Unix applications and shell's ability to setup pipes between applications (as unix processes) were characterised. Each unix application did something small and did it well. Then, using a simple mechanism of linking the byte stream output of one to the byte stream input of another made beautiful macro applications that could carry out remarkable tasks in concert. I claim that Web 2.0 dates back to the Unix (or perhaps Multics). MacOS and Windows brought GUI but they forced us to work in an environment of standalone applications. Applications could not be married together using simple bonds. I never expected OLE to be glue that could hold multiple applications together.
  

• What is Web 2.0
  2005-11-07 06:19:28  minoopy [Reply | View]
  
  
  Response to this comment and "Knowledge as the next 'Next Intel Inside'" from Tim Finin.
  
  As described in this comment, web 2.0 should make applicaitons understand each other. Is it too fast for the Web to develop at the current stage? Borrowing the comments from Tim Finin in his Knowledge as the next 'Next Intel Inside', with RDF data standards was fully recommended above XML/XSLT within the Web 2.0 era, the semantics between the applications could be built up, since then the real "understanding" between the applications could be stated.
  
  This is purely my personal view point. Welcome all kinds of comments!
• What is Web 2.0
  2005-10-26 17:29:41  timoreilly [Reply | View]
  
  
  Maybe you don't know, then, about the Flickr API, which makes it easy to reuse the flickr database in other applications. That's part of what has made it a web 2.0 poster child with lots of innovation and re-use. Google for instance for the Flickr color picker...

• Japanese Localize
  2005-10-16 07:26:52  huehara88 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Please permit my Japanese localization of this Article.
  If not, let me know.
  
  http://ceonews.jp/archives/2005/10/web20_7map.html

• FolkMind � a killer app for the Web 2.0 era
  2005-10-15 13:33:08  GeorgeChiramattel [Reply | View]
  
  
  Hi,
  First of all let me congratulate you on this beautiful article.
  
  I would also like to add to this discussion.<br/>
  If the Internet represents the 'collective intelligence of humanity' then in my opinion we require better tooling to utilize it. I wouldn't expect the 'virtual brain of humanity' to come with a 'search box' as its primary interface :-)
  
  At the following URL, I have described how we can build a better tool to handle the huge volume of information that is getting published on the net. I call this tool FolkMind.
  
  http://www.chiramattel.com/george/blog/2005/10/14/folkmind_a_killer_app_for_the_1.html

• Interesting Mathematical Definition of Web 2.0
  2005-10-13 09:50:37  Owen [Reply | View]
  
  
  In our complexity group, Friam.org, we've been discussing whether or not there is an emergent property to Web 2.0. One contender is Reed's Law
  http://www.reed.com/dprframeweb/dprframe.asp?section=gfn
  
  Basically a component of Web 2.0 is migration from "Metcalfe's Law" and "Reed's Law". Metcalfe's law states the value of a network varies as the number of pair-wise connections between nodes, (the complete graph of the nodes). This varies as n^2.
  
  Reed's law states the value of a network varies as the number of subgroups within that network. This varies as 2^n, a much, much larger number.
  
  This transition is occurring due to the migration of the web from a publishing technology to a community.
  
  A good article on the idea is "That Sneaky Exponential�Beyond Metcalfe's Law to the Power of Community Building"
  http://www.reed.com/Papers/GFN/reedslaw.html
  
  Owen

• Web 2.0 v. Web 1.0
  2005-10-13 01:41:51  joelcere [Reply | View]
  
  
  The evolution to Web 2.0, for lack of a better term is about attitude and expectation. Whether it is technology that led to a change of attitude, or that a shift in our relation to the web led to new technology is an academic debate which I will leave to the more technically endowed.
  
  In the 90s, the web was driven by companies seeking to turn it into a giant shopping mall. Consumers are now reclaiming the web for what it was intended for: a collective space bringing people together so that they could share experience and information. Just picture this: a collection of mega websites competing to attract eyeballs v. loose networks accessible by search engines, tags and connections where you can share information, engage in conversations and co-create. I am caricaturing here but the change is quite noticeable...
  
  This is how I understand it: Web 2.0. is a different way of looking at the web.
  
  Joel
  http://beyondpr.blogspot.com
  

• Napster - The inside story
  2005-10-04 11:23:18  DonDodge [Reply | View]
  
  
  The original Napster was a Web 2.0 style company, back in the 1.0 world. We were too far ahead of the curve (business and legal) to make it a successful business. I just did a post "Napster- the inside story" that gives an insiders view of what we were trying to do and what went wrong. You can see it here
  http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2005/10/napster_the_ins.html
  

• Business Applications
  2005-10-04 08:28:32  DemianE [Reply | View]
  
  
  What's missing in the article is a discussion about true apps on the web. Where does Salesforce fit in? Netsuite? Oracle OnDemand? Employease? They are not "consumer sites" like yahoo and google and wikipedia - they are not advertising driven...could they be? How do the economics work when you have 50,000 users instead of 50,000,000?
  
  I must admit I've been wondering about the "free software" mindset that is funded by other means, but I have yet to have an aha moment. Perhaps there is a new model that will fly...
  
  Demian Entrekin
  http://www.projectarena.com

• Also check out: Putting some meat on the Web 2.0 bones.
  2005-10-03 23:31:04  hypermark [Reply | View]
  
  
  For what it's worth, I have written a few posts that attempt to make sense of the WHAT, WHY and HOW of Web 2.0, the most recent of which is called, "Putting some meat on the Web 2.0 bones." If interested in such things, check it out:
  
  http://thenetworkgarden.blogs.com/weblog/2005/09/putting_some_me.html
  
  

• an analogy to P2P
  2005-10-03 14:46:31  [e-mail] [Reply | View]
  
  
  I'm teaching currently from a book "Content Networking" and I notice that the authors classify all the following under the topic "P2P Systems":
  

  
  
  • File Sharing (Napster, Gnutella, Chord, etc)
    
  • Collaboration (Groove, Magi, AIM, etc)
    
  • Distributed Computing (SETI@home, Gnome@home, etc)
    
  • Platforms (JXTA, .NET, etc)
    

  
  I contend that it's more that these things came to prominence at the same time (i.e. zeitgeist) rather than some well-defined, technical commonality forming this group of terms.
  

  
  Similarly, I look at the big bunch of stuff that Tim agglomerates into the topic "Web 2.0" and see more zeitgeist than sharp concept delineation. So maybe Web 2.0 is just Web 2005? If so, then I look forward to Web 2.1.3.12.
  

  
  

• Ajax-style Catalog Demo
  2005-10-03 08:31:41  AbaqueInside [Reply | View]
  
  
  Here is an example of what Ajax concept may bring in the area of catalogs, IOW large database browsing applications.
  http://www.abaqueinside.com/IntuiCatAjaxDemoVerif.asp
  currently in french, but fairly intuitive)
  
  Thierry Nivelet

• Way of
  2005-10-02 16:59:48  netsql2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  So you say..
  
  evite --> upcoming.org
  
  means web2.0?
  
  

  
  You are way of. Web2.0 is not incrmental!
  
  Check out roomity.com, that is web 2.0.
  
  

  
  .V
  

  
  http://roomity.com
  

• Knowledge as the next "Next Intel Inside"
  2005-10-02 15:37:47  finin [Reply | View]
  
  
  While the use of RDF is not part of the current Web 2.0 model, I'm hopeful that it will develop a key role, especially for web applications that want to flexibly import and export data and knowledge to other applications on the web. Since the current model makes use of data interchange and manipulation using XML and XSLT and , asynchronous data retrieval via XMLHttpRequest the pathway is there for the data to be expressed in RDF's XML encoding. -- Tim Finin, http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/

• Missing Link? and a Great ThankYou
  2005-10-02 06:08:44  RandomProp [Reply | View]
  
  
  Wonderful article. Very clarifying, even for a novice such as myself. Thank you so much.
  
  Question: Is there a missing link at bottom of p.2, section 2, last bullet on peer-production where you write "There are more than 100,000 open source software projects listed on (???)."?
  
  Where (???) are these software projects listed? Thanks again for an illuminating article.
• Missing Link? and a Great ThankYou
  2005-10-02 08:58:03  timoreilly [Reply | View]
  
  
  Oops. Sourceforge.net

• Tim O'Reilly 为 Web 2.0 正本清源
  2005-10-02 01:25:55  errorter [Reply | View]
  
  
  http://slashdotcn.org/article.php/2005100211271692

• As simple as possible and no simpler
  2005-10-01 02:02:03  jbond [Reply | View]
  
  
  One key factor in all this is APIs and Data formats that are as simple as possible and no simpler. That's:-
  - REST not XMLRPC, XMLRPC not SOAP, SOAP, not WS*
  - RSS, not custom XML schema, Simple XML schema not obfuscated RDF
  
  http://ww.voidstar.com
  
  
• As simple as possible and no simpler
  2006-10-24 09:04:02  pinchy [Reply | View]
  
  
  why not hopital2.0
• As simple as possible and no simpler
  2005-10-01 10:10:14  timoreilly [Reply | View]
  
  
  Julian -- I completely agree. I wrote "lightweight programming models" but I should have used your formulation. It's central to the success of the internet as a whole.
  
  I remember bringing Fred Baker, the chair of the IETF, to the second open source summit, and asking him what advice he could give to the Open source community, and it was essentially what you said above: standardize as little as possible, just enough to ensure interoperability.
  
  
• As simple as possible and no simpler
  2007-08-14 21:17:25  Backup-Bro [Reply | View]
  
  
  Web 2.0 is getting more and more popular.
  Say take a look at http://lavasoft.com
  and http://www.office-backup.com get the feeling?