Reality Check 2.0

Does anybody out there use Rollyo? How about Newsvine? 30 Boxes? I’m not going to even bother asking if anyone has a Eurekster Swicki up (or what exactly a Swicki is for that matter).


I think it’s really important to occasionally step out of our own bubble and assess whether or not all this “stuff” is really breaking out of our world and into the rest of the world. Ironically, the most un-Web 2.0 platform of all, Myspace, defies all logic.
So how is Web 2.0 doing generally? If you use Alexa to chart out some of these startups, you often see prettty rocky mountains. Typically, there’s an initial spike around the buzz of a release of some sort (what I like to call the “Honeymoon” or “Techcrunch” phase), and then things settle down.
Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. They could settle down to some solid, sustainable numbers. However, if we put aside the fact that just about all of these ventures charge no money, all we’ve got to hang our hat on is a growing user base (for the purpose of advertising and such). Unfortunately, except for a select few, nobody’s really on that path. Take a look at a few charts:



As you can see, it’s not that easy to get on a growth path and keep going. As for those spikes? Well, that’s just us (the technophiles) screwing around and playing with this stuff. Of course, there are some exceptions but they’re few and far between (Netvibes seems to be on a nice path).
In any respect, it’s all relative. How are all these ventures doing against the survivors of Web 1.0? Mind you, I don’t think it’s fair to compare Rojo to eBay for a handful of reasons. How about we compare stats from the sites that report and blog on all this stuff (Engadget, Boingboing, Techcrunch and Lifehacker) against an old school player: Cnet:

I know it’s kind of hard to read, but take my word for it, the aqua line in the graph is Cnet.
Of course, all this comparative analysis is anecdotal and isn’t meant to prove anything concrete. The real point of all this is to shed some light on how we can get caught up in our own noise. Your grandma doesn’t know what tagging is. Your uncle is not using Rollyo. People on the street are not using Gmail. They’re using Hotmail.
There’s one other point worth making about all the Web 2.0 zaniness. Prior to and since Google bought Writely, everyone’s been talking about how software as services are going to change the game. I think that’s a bit ambitious. I think it’s going to be increasingly difficult to prove out that people really want to their applications, and more importantly, their private data out on the Web. Furthermore, the entrenched players are not going to give up territory that easily. Take a look at this movie of the upcoming Office 2007 suite. It’s going to take a lot of Ajax to compete with that.
This post could easily be written off as one long bitch session. It isn’t meant to be one. I think for companies to succeed, it’s worth highlighting how hard the game really is and who else is playing. More importantly, it’s important to focus on how we get past our technical circles and penetrate the general population. It’s a very difficult nut to crack. Just ask the Old Guard, it took them years to get there..and they’re not about to give it up so easily.

57 Comments Reality Check 2.0

  1. Chris Brogan...

    I’ve littered the landscape with web 2.0 logins that go to sites I’ve abandoned as the application didn’t really do much to change my day. (I suspect Netvibes is on the uptick because guys like Om Malik and the boys on the TWiT podcast have been talking a lot about it lately as a better alternative to MS Live).
    I *do* use a few web2.0 gems: Backpack by 37 Signals, 30Boxes, and hmm… I think that’s it.
    Great question!
    -Chris from [chrisbrogan.com]

    Reply
  2. Rich Ziade

    Feedlounge is a great counter-example. They were never free from day one. Hell, they don’t even have much of a trial period.
    I’m really curious to see how they’re doing.

    Reply
  3. Avi Flax

    Justin, you’ve got a good point about Hotmail. It certainly is a steaming pile of crap. Even GMail confuses people by using “labels” instead of folders.
    However, I think Writely doesn’t compete with Hotmail — it competes with M$ Word. And I think it does that really well. And compared to Word, it’s simple. So there’s a compelling reason for people to get past the whole “is it a website or a program?” conceptual leap.
    Writely is now my word processor of choice — not just when I’m away from my computer, but any time. It’s my default word processor now. I only launch OpenOffice.org or NeoOffice when I’m working on a very complex document, and M$ Word — basically never.

    Reply
  4. Mr. K.

    I feel with Web 2.0 a big barrier is the vernacular. The names of these sites are so obscure I can hardly remember them when I want to visit for the first time. A newbie would definitely be utterly confused when confronted with feeds, tag clouds, RSS, blogs, etc. I will add that the vast majority of the population can’t even get their heads around the usefulness of web based email. Many don’t want their lives on the internet. The concept of posting photos online in flickr is beyond them. It’s not only, I don’t know how, but also, why would anybody want to do that? There are a lot more barriers to acceptance than the tech saavy realize.

    Reply
  5. M

    I tried really hard to use Newsvine, because I wanted to believe in it…I really did. It just didn’t work out. Too many irrelevant stories modded up. It almost gives me faith in the MSM.

    Reply
  6. Brian Smith

    Web 2.0 is becoming an evil whore to us in the web industry. Some harrold it as the next generation of… everything (even though ajax has been around since 1998). Regardless of if it is the next big wave or not its still just a buzz word to me, and the general population isn’t going to care what framework a site is built on, only if it looks good and relevant to their life.
    If we can make sites that are GOOD, no FUD and look halfway decent (not even Amazon looked good when it began), then those sites will naturally rise to the top. Perhaps I am delusional or not.
    Also I wanted to comment quickly on using CNET has a benchmark to lifehacker and boingboing. CNET IS NOTHING LIKE LIFEHACKER OR BOING BOING! They have totally different content and people go to each site for a *very* different reason. Cnet is also a long time mega site, more of a portal with an industry worth of personel behind it, where lifehacker is pieced together by volunteers.
    But I think the author made some excelent points in this article and I comment you on your work and effort to kill some FUD.
    DOWN WITH FUD ’06!

    Reply
  7. cpawl

    I’ve been making this noise since the beginning. Being a web designer and developer, those in my field have literary been amazed that I have had no interest, need, or even seen a relative point to most of the Web 2.0 junk out there. Del.icio.us being the beginning of my “who cares” attitude. Everyone was like, “Tags man tags- awesome!” Personally I find them almost useless. Sure you can “tag” the links- great – but for how bare bones del.icio.us (or where ever you add the dots) is, anyone not into tech or a complete web geek would never bother. It’s confusing, click a tag here, click a tag there, then how do I return to the origins of my search without hitting the back button 14 times. How, when I can there to find CSS links did I end up in the “real estate” section? Annoying and nearly useless. Someone please tell me again why I want to “share” and “tag” pictures of my backyard on Flickr? I simply email them to owns who need to know and care, or since I too am a web geek- post them on my own private server. Sure, now strangers can not see the picture of my house cat… but why on earth would they want to?
    With sites like Digg.com – I go there time to time- read the front page articles and leave. I have too much other things to do to waste time “digging” random articles, mostly about Apple and Steve Jobs. I highly doubt anyone (espically there) over the age of 17 does.

    Reply
  8. Evan

    Newsvine is excellent. Their RSS feed is top notch. I do agree with you, a lot of these services and sites are unused and will remain that way.

    Reply
  9. mikkom

    Those alexa graphs show something but not what you describe because only few people have alexa installed.
    My sites have similar spikes even though on the real stats on my server, there are no spikes, there are some variations between days but not nearly as much as alexa graphs would make you think.
    just my 2 cents…
    mikko

    Reply
  10. Adam

    I think the point that needs to be made concerning ‘Web2.0’ is that it is, for most, a collection of tools and techniques that allow people to do ‘gee whiz’ stuff with a whiff of a chance of being bought up.

    At the end of the day, it’s what people choose to do with these tools that matters. To say how great tagging or ajax is, is akin to saying, ‘I LOVE this hammer! Aren’t screwdrivers just the best? I can build a box with these tools!”

    If people focused on using these tools to solve old problems in new and better ways, (ref. Google Maps) we’d all be a lot better off.

    Reply
  11. Aditya Mukherjee

    Just so you know, I happen to use 30Boxes, and am very happy with their services.
    The problem here is not how ambitious or out of the way a new application is. Its completely based on the ‘buzzword’ syndrome. AJAX and Web 2.0 are the new buzzwords (just like Firefox was a while back), and anything which remotely has this word in their application name or description, will generate interest because half the people out their don’t know/don’t care about what the thing does. They sign up, and later on realise that its not worth it.
    Some applications are worth their meat (Writely), but the rest are all duds. Trying to re-invent the wheel, they are missing out on trying to do something more creative.

    Reply
  12. Tom

    Guys – what are you talking about? The concept of social whatever – many people collecting knowledge? Ajax as a technology? Tagging as a methodology?
    My 2ct:
    Social bookmarking, whatever: hyped now, some will stay, most will feel the shakeout
    Ajax: here to stay. But for web applications. Thick clients will feel the power until the next wave brings the power back to the client (we are moving in those waves for some decades already)
    Tagging: nice. but not more.
    And finally: Google – completely overpaid stock. Anybody remembers the best search engine with huge market share? No, I’m talking about altavista …
    Tom

    Reply
  13. Michiel

    told’ em to call it ‘web 1.1’ didn’t I? Now it’s just getting embarrasing. And outside the tech community, nobody even knows about the whole ‘web 2.0’ hubbub. It’s fun to go confuse people on the street by going up to them and asking ‘Do you know about web 2.0?’
    Actually, I might do a short doc on that.

    Reply
  14. Demetrius Pinder

    You are RIGHT on point with this article. This entire web 2.0 phenonmeon is getting out of control. I know people in my age group (young to mid 20’s) that cant even make two numbers in excel add up; yet, we are pushing this next generation of web applications on the masses!
    The only people who are interested in this stuff (at least, for now) are the same people who are reading this blog. While I commend the intentions of the people behind the Web 2.0 curtain, I have to ask: does the average Joe six pack care about tagging and digging?

    Reply
  15. carl mcqueen

    Well thought out and presented point. I think there needs to be more exposure as to which 2.0’s are really worth changing your regime for and adding to your website.
    With data showing that the average user visits 6-10 sites, it is vital for web2.0 to consolidate how many there are of them and more over to make sure that they are included on that 6 – 10 website ratio.

    Reply
  16. Everbuzz

    Reality Check WEB 2.0

    Does anybody out there use Rollyo? How about Newsvine? 30 Boxes? I’m not going to even bother asking if anyone has a Eurekster Swicki up (or what exactly a Swicki is for that matter). I think it’s really important

    Reply
  17. Marquee

    Well said. Thank you for this post. You know what’s so sad really? All these things that we’ve been doing for years is now “new” by all the people who weren’t involved the first time around. As I write about, there’s nothing really new here. And then you try and tell them it’s not new (or useful for that matter) and all they do is flame back at you. The next generation of people is going to be full of non-confrontational know-it-alls who can’t take constructive criticism. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all about technical evolution. However, I’m very realistic. That’s why my signature to my e-mail is:
    Marquee
    Chief Reality Officer
    Anti “Web 2.0”
    http://www.02bew.com

    Reply
  18. Jon

    “People on the street are not using Gmail. They’re using Hotmail.”
    That’s just untrue. My mother, father, uncle, aunt, cousins, brother, girlfriend, sister-in-law all use Gmail, and I’m not the one who invited them all. In fact, I hardly have any contacts using Hotmail any more.

    Reply
  19. endurablegoods

    Man… finally. Living in San Francisco, it is easy to get all wrapped up in this stuff. Now, I love it – don’t get me wrong. I live on Digg and hit TechCrunch and the Federated Media sites every day. But I realize that, well, no one else is really all that interested. Besides Silicon Valley and a smattering of big cities, most folks are still struggling with basic email tasks and solitaire. There is no doubt that the W2.0 movement is important, but it is gonna take years of work before much of anything is adopted by The Common People. And by that time, it’ll just be called ‘the interweb.’

    Reply
  20. Shane Birley

    Finally, someone who thinks like me. I am told repeatedly by business associates, some techy friends, and on blog after blog after blog about how Web 2.0 and web based applications are going to kick the butt of, well, basically everything.
    But, I can’t help but think: who is using these products? The very same business associates, techy friends, and those bloggers who write it.
    As I am reminded each time I talk to a client or non-nerdy friend – they haven’t a clue. This stuff may have hit the fringes of the mainstream but it hasn’t entered into the maintream conscience.
    I think it won’t for a number of years. When a client asks me what Writely is, I will know it has started to happen. The majority of my clients still are wondering about how to make footnotes in Office 2000.

    Reply
  21. xamox

    Yeah I seen an article that someone posted saying in 10 years all software will be web driven. I don’t believe that. For one thing embedded systems won’t be. There is also a need for an operating system to run web services. And who is to say web services will be able to do such things as 3-d modeling.

    Reply
  22. Nelson Medina

    Web 2.0 brings wonderful things to life, no doubt, but also brings all sorts of dogmatism. Example: it is a Web 2-dogma that background music (yes: the old midis) HAD to be avoided. I dared to ask my visitors: close to 60% preferred background music! What is fancy to the geeks is not necessarily appealing to the masses.

    Reply
  23. Ben

    Think long-term. A few months isn’t enough time to convince everyone. Of course developers and people in the industry are going to be well ahead of the consumer curve.
    Eventually all your “web-dumb” friends won’t have a choice but to use web services. Because all the big companies will have switched to them too. Or at least some method of software delivery that relies heavily on them as part of the whole package.
    I think it’s a pretty seamless conversion for end users.

    Reply
  24. no digg dot net

    Web 2.0 Reality Check

    A well-written dose of pessimism from someone who writes frequently about web matters: “I think it’s really important to occasionally step out of our own bubble and assess whether or not all this ’stuff’ is really breaking out o…

    Reply
  25. Rich Ziade

    I would love to hear from some of the people behind these ventures – both investors and people working at these companies.
    I think there is a lot of great thinking and philosophy behind web 2.0 – better user experience, keep it simple, etc. Unfortunately, those virtues don’t translate into an actual need out there. It takes more…

    Reply
  26. dan

    I think 2.0 is less about real sustainable products and services and more about the synergistic scene of technology and creative people crafting ideas and implementing them regardless of whether or it should be done.
    I think the scene is not about judgement of 2.0, its the doing of 2.0. You just do it.
    Before you’d have an idea and then it was sink or swim on taking it any further from the napkin you sketched it on. Now it’s much much easier to make that idea take shape, gain an audience, and breathe a little.
    I don’t think you can contain the experiement, its out, its going, its happening and its hard not to notice or watch. Its a great time for creators and the major players, provided they take notice.
    What’s the alternative? Stop ideas? Stop the creation of attempts to make stuff, products, services, enabling bits of wonder?? How do you stop that? Why stop it?
    2.0 has been in the rollout or development now for about 2 years… so it finally gets noticed by a few magazines and already the nichie that crafts it wants to bail to the next unknown trendy wordism.
    So what if its hype? Let the real stuff that matters rise to the surface and get used, the collective user base will decide that.
    I don’t see the pain in 2.0. Corportate idenities in midwest are just now starting to see the some of the core ideas behind it and already in sanfran its like “oh god, dont say 2.0.. we’ll be kicked out.. let’s call it Atlantis…or something…”.
    Bah! another obvious article, good to point out i suppose

    Reply
  27. Marquee

    Rich – I completely agree. It’s as if we haven’t realized this need from the beginning. Everyone involved in the web from early on always struggled with that. None of the “new” technology like ajax was introduced because of we knew it wouldn’t solve the real problems. You want to hear a good one? It’s now being called the new new web. Yes, 2 news. The new web was the google & msn’s. Now it’s the new new one. Unreal.

    Reply
  28. rob Elam

    There is hype surrounding “Web 2.0” web services, but isn’t that a good thing? Its free advertisement for some small business owners.
    If I had the skillz to create a half lame AJAX webservice I would, then I’d promote the shit out of it!
    Brian Smith and others are complaining about Del.icio.us, writely and all other 2.0 applications that they think are “useless”.
    But they are missing the point: Del.icio.us was sold for MILLIONS OF DOLLARS! writely sold for MILLIONS OF DOLLARS! And there are many others.
    If you are a web developer with a unique idea or know of something you think you could do better, why wouldn’t you take a crack at creating a “Web 2.0” app then selling it to the highest bidder or making ad money off of loyal subscribers.
    Zaide mentions: “People on the street are not using Gmail. They’re using Hotmail.”
    Don’t you remember how Hotmail started? It was a lame little email service that caught on due to word of mouth because it was FREE. Then it got bought by Microsoft. Google is GIVING AWAY 2.7 damn gigs of email space FREE… you don’t think that will catch on eventually?
    I guess I’m just not cool enough, or geek enough or tech enough to understand why “Gurus” are looking down there nose at Web 2.0 apps.
    Yes, there is hype
    Yes, its defined a bunch of different ways
    Yes, many, many so called web 2.0/ajax apps suck, but that is what the bubble burst is all about.
    Eventually, like in ’99 some of these web services will catch on BIG.. (I believe digg is one of them). In many ways us technophiles who are geek enough to know or be interested or disgusted by the web 2.0/ajax craze are like a huge test bed. Ultimately, non-techies determine just how far most apps will go as they separate the wheat from the chaff.

    Reply
  29. Felipe Ledesma

    What I find cool about Web 2.0 is the minimalist look of the webpages, some Ajax functionalities that are just logical for user interfaces and some very cool applications that are pushing the envelope…
    But everything else it´s just a mess…

    Reply
  30. Tobias C. Brown

    I find that my Google searches often turn up articles from Wikipedia — and often these are in the #1 results position. So, I started going straight to WikiPedia, skipping Google altogether. And since I’ve started using del.icio.us, I seem to find more excellent resources there more quickly and more reliably then by searching Google, so again I’ve started skipping Google altogether… So, in the past couple months, my online experience has changed dramatically with Web 2.0 apps. My Google use has dropped dramatically from 100% for research down to about 30%. Del.icio.us has taken over for me, so I’d say Web 2.0 involves some hype yes but I also regard it as a real and a major development. Though I agree that many of the 2.0 apps are very boring.

    Reply
  31. galiel

    1. You confuse style with substance. MySpace is very much a Web 2.0 service in the sense of it being about people, community and connections; in the sense of it being about disintermediation–real disintermediation, not the fake kind we had in 1.0 where it was young start-up middle-men using VC money to try to take the place of the big publishers, but ultimately just getting in the way of people talking to people. Also, precisely because MySpace empowers users to create their own look, because it supports all sorts of loud and jangly media, and because it doesn’t neatly separate static from dynamic from collectively-authored content — even though you might turn your nose up at the wild and awkward adolescent experiments there.
    (You also ignore places like LinkedIn that apply the social-networking concept to more “respectable” uses. Many folks have found work, vendors, customers and business partners through LinkedIn and similar services. You also ignore services like Facebook, which my college daughter and every single one of her peers uses extensively.)
    2. You confuse the fate of individual companies with the validity of a descrete and identifiable evolution in what the web is used for. In any new trend there will be winners and losers, and more innovators will fail to gain traction. You can always point to the Studebakers of the world and claim that horseless carriages were a neat idea, but ultimately didn’t take off.
    The trick is that we can’t know in advance who the winners will be and who the losers will be (or we’d all be rich off the stock market). A short way of explaining your error here is that selected anecdotes are no substitute for sober trend analysis. First understand what Web 2.0 is (hint: It isn’t large fonts and rounded corners), and then see if what it is has lasting value, no matter the fate of individual companies.
    3) Your choice of anecdotes deliberately and rather dramatically skews the results. The traffic endgadget or lifehacker generate, at this moment in time (and what makes these Web 2.0 applications or services anyway?) is no indication of the validity of Web 2.0 as a phenomenon. And you think the general public uses Cnet? You think my grandmother uses Cnet? Really.
    I notice you don’t have Flickr up there; I notice you don’t have Digg, I notice you don’t have, not only Google, but the cumulative traffic all the Google mashups and adjuncts generate. I notice you don’t have Blogger, or Wikipedia, or Del.icio.us, or today’s Yahoo! for that matter, or any number of wildly trafficked services and products that are people-centric, rely on open data and collaborative efforts, and are very much NOT the secret domains of geeks and jackheads, but rather used and appealing to a wide, diverse, and remarkably rapidly growing demographic.
    Finally, you neglect new and up-and-coming folks like Meebo, whose entire online presence embodies everything that Web 2.0 is really about, from the product itself, to the blog, forums and wikis they provide to include and incorporate their users, to the way they have converted customers to fans, to the way those fans volunteered to translate Meebo into dozens of languages just because they had an oppportunity to do it, and on and on (and, no, I have no relationship with, stake in, or intimate knowledge of Meebo or the Meebo team). There are hundreds and hundreds more, from the Broadcast Machine to Odeo to Jot, that are going ahead and changing the way we do things and interact and collaborate and communicate and learn, without worrying about how “2.0-ish” you rate them or whether or not you think what they do is real.
    So, basically, your argument doesn’t hold up, you confuse glitter with gold, you have a poor selection of anecdotes, and you look at the half empty glass and assume it is leaking from the bottom rather than waiting for a refill, so your conclusion is all wrong.
    Other than that, you’re right on ;-)

    Reply
  32. JC

    First of all I must point out that this was a good post. I agree with you on the most part. But I also agree with some of the comments in here, like for example, I agree with Tobias (comment above me). My Google searches have dropped dramatically over the past few months. If I need to find pictures I use Flickr, and for websites I use Digg and Del.icio.us. The whole concept of “Foxonomy” is pretty good for the most part. It filters all the content found on the web and gives you stuff that is most relavent to you.
    Having said that, I agree that people on the street don’t use tagging or even have any idea what it is. I think at this point the whole “Web 2.0” revolution is at a phase where it appeals to the technophiles and the geeks. It needs to become much more mature and look at things from a non-techi consumer standpoint.
    Bottom line is that whatever web app it is, Web 2.0 or not, if the concept behind the app is robust and pratical, it will catch on. Even if you have a niche audience who uses it, it doesn’t matter. You gotta have a good/pratcial revenue model, ads can only get you so far.

    Reply
  33. Bob Corrigan

    Apparently, Web 2.0 is all about long, drawn-out rebuttals, if the previous comment is any indication. :)
    I do take slight issue with the previous comment’s second point, in which the author smartly challenges us to “understand what Web 2.0 is”. So here I go.
    Trying to “define” Web 2.0 is a little like trying to “define” any other emergent trend. What you think it is “right now” doesn’t matter. Ask us in 3-5 years and we’ll be able to tell you. Right now, it’s a bunch of motivated, clever and very smart individuals using buzzwords like “community”, “people-centric”, “collaborative”, and most tellingly, “rapidly growing demographic”. Until then, my take on Web 2.0 is that it’s a buzzword used by VCs and entrepreneurs to raise money and justify valuations in a category that is currently little more than an experiment in search of a serious path to liquidity.
    With the exception of Flickr, Blogger, Wikipedia, Del.icio.us, Feedburner and maybe Digg. And Boxxet, which I love to death. Maybe that makes me one of those hipsters who can’t wait to “collaborate, commuicate and learn.”
    Other than that, you’re right on ;-) My cynicism is purely for entertainment purposes.

    Reply
  34. Gene

    I don’t wish to deviate too much from the what I think is the intention of this article, but I have to say – I love this new technology.Like the experiences of many, my forays into Web 2.0 generally follow a pattern. I experiment with each new application I come across, observing the merits, drawbacks and personal aversions (I usually would like to see a more aesthetically customisable interface), and then more often than not ditch it. While I have little use for many of the sites I have visited in this manner (Digg being one exception), I will invariably reflect on the manner in which I use my own time and energy and the tools that help me accomplish my goals. I’m grateful for the development Web 2.0 applications. The popularity of new W2 sites has at the very least ignited some creativity in new quarters. The folks who hold the purse strings at Google appear to feel the same way occasionally. My point here is I think the long term benefits of this technology and (others) shouldn’t be ignored. Maybe I liken it to a particle accelerator in this respect.The Chairman of ICANN was interviewed yesterday on television. He made a comment about the world having only explored about 1% of the potential of the internet. I believe without Web 2.0 and other technologies (as yet unthought of), we can’t reasonably expect to ever make use of any of the 99%.

    Reply
  35. Basement.org

    Reality Revisited

    So the Reality Check 2.0 post from a couple of days ago got quite a response. It obviously hit a nerve on both sides of the spectrum regarding Web 2.0. A couple of thoughts: First, I was pretty surprised at…

    Reply
  36. kmx

    Buddy, you’ve got a MAJOR point here. Is Web 2.0 really going to have the “mainstream” buzzing? Probably not. Great, GREAT read.

    Reply
  37. Supr.c.ilio.us: The Blog

    Ponzi Relevance

    Rich Ziade of Basement.org woke up on the wrong side of Bubble2.0. Mssr. Ziade goes straight for the jugular, “People on the street are not using Gmail. They’re using Hotmail.” Ouch Rich, you don’t have to hit to hurt you know….

    Reply
  38. Narendra

    Great post, except that it is a bit of a truism that Web2.0 isn’t going mainstream anytime soon. The reason, Web1.0 is in the way!
    At 30boxes, we are trying to take risks with new interface design and generally be creative. The initial surge astounded us but we have settled and have great week over week growth going although we are only 7 weeks old.
    The Web2.0 apps and businesses that succeed will be the ones that find areas that crossover into the mainstream and use creativity to evolve new business models.
    Success doesn’t need to be huge sales or vc funding. A lot of these things will simply be cool projects that live on for a long time because overhead is so low.

    Reply
  39. Rich Ziade

    Well said Narendra.
    I think this kind of dialogue is healthy. This isn’t about “oh just give up.” It’s more about refining our ideas and challenging ourselves to see how we break out to the masses.

    Reply
  40. Marko

    If you say Web 2.0 is about Ajax, well, I couldnt agree more. But Web 2.0 isn’t imho about Ajax alone. It is about several things:
    – technology
    – design
    – user involvement
    – money
    – behaviour
    Technology is the ajax-part, but maybe also about Macromedia Flash, with great video capabilities. It is about drifting away from the static text-oriented pages to the more interactive sites.
    Design is changing because of Web 2.0. Instead of long scrollable text-pages that load one after another, designers are starting to make sites more like a program. How come that almost every newspaper online is, well, shaped like a newspaper? While it is clear that the screen media are quite different than print media. I think (and hope0 that Web 2.0 gets designers thinking more about functionality.
    User involvement is the paradigm in many web 2.0-sites. They give power to the people. That will certainly be picked up by many traditional publishers. From “We write, you read” to “We make and we read”. From content for the user to content from the user.
    Heavy user involvement also will give data mining a whole new concept. The ‘ most read’- section at many news sites is only the beginning, I suspect.
    Web 2.0 is also about money. The seeders are giving money away again. And for innovation, one needs money. Many of the so-called web 2.0-sites will die. But their legacy might be used on other sites that learn and consolidate and prosper. The single service site will die, but the same service as a feature in another site, might be very much appreciated. And well worth the money spend.
    In the end Web 2.0 is a stage in which behaviour changes: sites behave different, designers behave different, users behave different, money givers behave different and programmers behave different.
    Because the Web 2.0 requires more of the capabilities of the web (compared Web 1.0), it might be a very good thing.

    Reply
  41. Dan Marques

    Like any new product/service the early adopters jump on board and it takes an indefinite amount of time before the majority comes in. Web 2.0 is basically for early adopters only right now, some things will grow to the masses, others wont, but no one can really predict which ones will make it, at least not yet.

    Reply
  42. Kaka62060

    My life’s been pretty dull recently. Shrug. My mind is like a void. I haven’t gotten anything done lately. I can’t be bothered with anything recently.

    Reply
  43. adam smith

    User involvement is the paradigm in many web 2.0-sites. They give power to the people. That will certainly be picked up by many traditional publishers. From “We write, you read” to “We make and we read”. From content for the user to content from the user.info

    Reply
  44. George Sorof

    I think this kind of dialogue is healthy. This isn’t about “oh just give up.” It’s more about refining our ideas and challenging ourselves to see how we break out to the masses.
    good!

    Reply
  45. proxy

    Technology is the ajax-part, but maybe also about Macromedia Flash, with great video capabilities. It is about drifting away from the static text-oriented pages to the more interactive sites.

    Reply
  46. proxy

    Brian Smith and others are complaining about Del.icio.us, writely and all other 2.0 applications that they think are “useless”.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *