To set the scene, let's consider what the essence of Web 2.0 is. Peter Merholz has been thinking about this: "The point isn't the features, it's the underlying philosophy of relinquishing control." He pointed to Barnes & Noble's failed attempt to replicate Amazon's features and also cited Blockbuster trying to copy Netflix.
New blogger Sergey Schetinin has a 2.0 twist on an old theme: The Web is Atomic. I particularly liked this remix of Paul Miller's words:
"Web 2.0 presages a freeing of data, allowing it to be exposed, discovered and manipulated in a variety of ways…
Web 2.0 permits the building of virtual applications, drawing data and functionality from a number of different sources…
Web 2.0 applications work for the user, and are able to locate and assemble content that meets our needs as users…
Web 2.0 applications are modular …
Web 2.0 is about sharing; code, content, ideas…"
So the philosophy of Web 2.0 is to let go of control, share ideas and code, build on what others have built, free your data. It's actually a difficult philosophy to live by, when you consider how capitalistic Western society is. But more on that in another post...
btw, I've gotta love a new blogger that puts me on their v0.1 blogroll alongside just 3 other people: Clay Shirky, Kevin Kelly, Tim Berners-Lee. :-)
ZDNet is calling the current generation of the Web the "recombinant Web". Although that term is too much of a mouthful to catch on, the explanation is spot on:
"...the recombinant Web, Web mash-ups, Web 2.0 or just the next phase of Web evolution heralds the use of the Web as a platform for creating new kinds of user experiences and businesses. Jon Udell calls it remixable Web applications."
In a CNET article entitled Catching up to Web 2.0, Martin LaMonica gives us his definition:
"Now programmable Web sites are becoming more widespread, a change that unleashing all sorts of intriguing combinations, or "mash-ups." Some people call that Web 2.0."
LaMonica wrote more on that theme in a follow-up CNet article entitled From Web page to Web platform. His bottom line:
"Experts predict Web site owners will increasingly resemble software companies: To generate traffic and sales, they will encourage add-on products and Web services."
Hmmm, there is an overarching theme developing here. In CNET's words:
"The effect is to put a great deal of power in the hands of outside individuals and to transform Web sites into programmable machines."
Web sites as software companies, programmable machines... I like that way of expressing the power of Web 2.0 sites/entities such as Google and Amazon.
The second CNET article also has a paragraph devoted to eBay's use of APIs. Apparently 20% of eBay's listings come from the APIs - mostly for "high volumes". There are now 18,000 people in eBay's developer program, up from just 300 in 2003.
Robert Scoble recently visited eBay and was so impressed he was moved to comment:
"I think we're about to see a revolution in retailing. Someone could build an interesting new store using a combination of Google Maps or MSN Virtual Earth, Amazon, eBay, and other Web services."
But as usual, Robert's commenters had some interesting counterpoints. Developer Morgan Schweers said:
"There are some questions to be asked about the openness and design of eBay's API. [...] As for the people who are making $1Mil/mo., they are most likely spending $750+K/mo. to make it."
On the topic of implementations of API services, Feedburner has just released its FeedBurner Feed Management API. It's described as:
"...sort of like a universal remote control for FeedBurner services. You can create, manage and remove feeds in your account without ever visiting feedburner.com."
According to Rashmi Sinha, the quintessential Web 2.0 application is Flickr. She explained:
"Its data and metadata is contributed by its users; while the interface is its own. Its API's are used by developers who tend to use its data, but not the interface (such as Mappr, Color Pickr)."
Flickr is certainly a great example of a small company using Web 2.0 technologies to its advantage, although on a larger scale I don't think you can go past Google, Amazon and eBay as quintessential Web 2.0 entities. I also liked this line by Jon in the comments to Rashmi's post: "When web sites start acting like software companies, then you have your Web 2.0."
Finally, to end this mash-up on the topic of mash-ups, let me go right back to the original source of the Web - Tim Berners-Lee. In a recent interview with the BBC on the topic of the read/write Web, Sir Tim had this prediction for the Web in 30 years time:
"My goal for the web in 30 years is to be the platform which has led to the building of something very new and special, which we can't imagine now."
'nuff said.
]]>I thought it was part of the Yahoo mega corp now?
]]>Closed systems (societies, corporations, technology) neither work as well nor harness the power of community. Thus, in the case of corporations, vertical integration does not work. In the case of societies, as the 9/11 report found, closed information organizations contributed to a major intelligence failure.
Open source software is part of (the major part?) of the open, transparent trend. SOA, SaaS, open APIs -- all the same. Outsourcing too is part of this trend. Indeed, as flawed as it may be, Sarbanes Oxley is a regulatory attempt at requiring companies to be transparent. I believe the winners ultimately will be.
"Web 2.0" -- what ever you call it, is at its essense, about openness and transparency.
]]>This follows building a mash-up of my own at a startup I did called Verdada, which is an information management toolbar for IE and Outlook, and uses Amazon APIs for product data, Microsoft MapPoint APIs for maps and scraped Citysearch for product listing data.
In any event, here is the URL if interested, and a summary follows of the post follows:
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/7562
Excerpt: From this vantage point, RSS evolves beyond simple publish and subscribe to become more akin to web services. The concept of a feed is extended to support both a diverse range of data and content types, and feeds can contain rich ìpayloads.î Furthermore, feeds gain the ability to expose well-formed methods providing the intelligent ìglue logicî for building loosely coupled applications. Backed by two application examples, this blog presents a thesis of the key moving parts integral to the RSS platform and how they come together.
]]>AW, good points about transparency. I don't think I'll ever count Sarbanes Oxley as being Web 2.0 though (for one thing, it's keeping many old-school Enterprise CMS vendors alive) ;-)
Brady - this "easy, lego-like "masher" IDE"... tell us more. :-)
Mark, thanks for your comment. I nearly included your article in my mash-up here, but decided not to talk about RSS in this particular post. I enjoyed your article, definitely.
]]>thanks for all the insights richard.
]]>platypus has made a good start on this
http://platypus.mozdev.org
So I'll explain here: you're on a blogroll because your articles are consistently worth reading. Actually, your blog is the only "web2.0 blog" I am subscribed to. Really, I like your attitude, a mixture of excitement about what is happening and a sober view of what we need instead of "what is cool". Keep it up and I hope you will get to do what you love to, for a living.
]]>