Comments for Just Say No To Web 2.0

Just Say No To Web 2.0

2005-11-08T03:19:39Z

Flock has been getting a lot of flack from certain quarters. Mostly they're being (unfairly) tagged as a kind of symbol of the so-called Web 2.0 bubble. I've been dismayed by some of the venom that's been directed at Flock - some of it has been downright spiteful. I'm a bit saddened to see it's apparently prompted an outright ban of the phrase 'Web 2.0' in Flock's office. FactoryJoe wrote recently:

"WeÔøΩre viewed as a Web 2.0 poster child (and subsequently pegged for representing many of the things broken about it). Following OÔøΩReillyÔøΩs Web2.0 Conference it seemed that the phrase became a dirty word ÔøΩ as a catch-phrase, once it caught on with a wider audience it seemed to lose all relevance or meaning whatsoever.. Not like it makes much difference, but weÔøΩve had a ban on the phrase in our office stemming from around the same time."

Nice monitor! Photo by foolswisdom

I'm quite happy for Flock to go back to their Open Source roots and shun the Web 2.0 hype machine. No use going the Kurt Cobain route and letting the meatheads and metalheads get you down. But don't hide behind your Mac monitors too much, guys - the Web 2.0 community still loves you! :-)

UPDATE: Ben Barren tried to shield my eyes from this horrid picture, bless him, but I couldn't resist peeking...

Noooooooo....

Comment from Pat on 2005-11-07

2005-11-08T04:20:19Z

I think its pretty ridiculous for any company to get caught up in this stuff... I mean, who cares what some industry pundits think? Focus on your strategy, execution and customers - and let bloggers say whatever they want about Web 2.0 and what that even means.

Comment from David Newberger on 2005-11-07

2005-11-08T04:26:17Z

I agree with pat on this one work on YOUR vision and listen to YOUR customers.

Comment from Richard MacManus on 2005-11-07

2005-11-08T04:37:49Z

Pat said: "who cares what some industry pundits think?"

Present company excluded though, right Pat? ;-)

The thing is, Flock initially rode the Web 2.0 wave for all it was worth. That was part of their strategy to get users. But due to the negative publicity, it seems they've withdrawn a bit. And who can blame them? There's a site out there called flocksucks, that is writing some horrendous things about them.

Comment from Pat on 2005-11-07

2005-11-08T04:46:47Z

Don't get me wrong, I buy into all the Web 2.0 stuff... I just think you need to focus on building valuable things that customers want. If you can do that, I don't think too much else matters. I don't really know too much about Flock but if they're building things people want and actually have a business model behind it, then I'm sure even the bad publicity is good publicity. Maybe that isn't the case though, I honestly have no idea. If they're not building value and/or don't have a business model to support it, maybe the pundits are right after all. :-)

Comment from Chris Messina on 2005-11-07

2005-11-08T05:26:53Z

Ah, it's always good to hear from folks who do like what we're doing. My post wasn't really meant as a major "mea culpa duck and cover!" -- more like, "hey yeah, ok, now we've heard from you, we've got some perspective, and man, it kinda sucks that our work seems like just another Web2.0 idea. Let's see if we can answer some of your doubts."

The truth is, we started thinking about these problems last spring, way before the hype machine sucked up Silicon Valley. I don't think most of the kids doing the new, hip apps are a bunch of Johnny-come-lately's trying to make a buck off the hype. We're certainly not. This is a long term effort to improve the state of browsers. Which is why it seemed odd to have so many people question the concept behind Flock out right, but in hindsight, as I wrote, the reasons why they did became clear.

Anyway -- I totally appreciate the support. We've got aggressive plans to get that "Developer Preview" tag taken off Flock by the end of the year, so hopefully by then we'll have something a little more representative of our vision. And I'd love to hear any thoughts, feedback, suggestions or whatever about what we're doing. We're currently in the process of redesigning Bugzilla to suit our needs, so if anyone else wants to pitch in, drop me a note, chris at flock dot com.

Comment from Richard MacManus on 2005-11-08

2005-11-08T09:27:02Z

I hear where you're coming from Chris. You guys have got your own vision for Flock, so I'm looking forward to tracking your progress.

Thanks for the comments Pat, I hear where you're coming from too. I think Flock does have a viable business plan, not necessarily for the mainstream market. But I'll refrain from mentioning The Long Tail :-)

Comment from Ted Rheingold on 2005-11-08

2005-11-08T20:09:36Z

Couldn't agree more with cutting Flock some slack. They didn't invite the Web2.0 hype engine. They haven't made one promise they haven't fulfilled. They haven't even said they have a business plan (so what's the point in a pundit saying they can't see it?)

It's funny the critique I read about their product as it's highly myopic. Take a step back and you see they are showing the tech world that giant pieces of amazing software remain well underutilized, and there are still hundreds of features and variations that could improve the larger puzzle.

I am positive there will be a wave of Firefox mods coming soon. There will also be a wave of web-publishing convenience tools thrown at us. So many that sites like this and TechCrunch won't even be able to cover them all. From what I see and know of the Flock team they will not be lost amongst the follow-on producers, they will be ten steps ahead, because they are going to be constantly pushing the opportunity line, constatnly envisioning enhanced feature sets and constantly coding them into reality.

Before too long pundits will be saying something like "well I didn't really get Flock at first and X and Y we're clunky, but they have really shown us they are really serious about offering a whole new platform to meet a whole new set of web usage needs."

Comment from Mike on 2005-11-08

2005-11-08T21:53:46Z

Like to pass this view from a very well respected person (curent a "strategic architect") within my current organisation as I believe it puts "Web 2.0" (which I love) in to perspective:

------------------------

Over the weekend I downloaded and installed the final production release of NCSA Mosaic 3.0. For the uninformed, Mosaic was the original rich content browser from National Centre for Supercomputing Architecture (NCSA). Both Netscape and IE were derived from that browser.

So I tried it out on:
- www.stuff.co.nz - browser blew up
- www.sun.com - mostly raw html in browser
- http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/SDG/Software/Mosaic/NCSAMosaicHome.html - blew up. Somewhat ironic as that is where I got it from.

Mosaic 3.0 browser was built in 1997 and by today's standards is a piece of non-functional crap. Outside was our 1997 Nissan Terranno. Still a modern fully functional vehicle that is fully compatible with all the fuel, oil and road standards.

My take is that the internet, and most ITS systems, are still an imature and evolving infrastructure. Rather than web 2.0 we should be talking about Web 0.4a. Once we have an infrastructure that can fully support stuff 20 years old we will have reached Web 1.0.