<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" 
      xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/web_20_weekly_w_42.php" />
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/atom.xml" />
  <id>tag:,2009:/1/tag:72.47.210.69,2005://1.4632-</id>
  <updated>2009-10-30T14:52:27Z</updated>
  <title>Comments for Web 2.0 Weekly Wrap-up, 7 - 13 Nov 2005</title>
  
  <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 4.23-en</generator>
  <entry>
    <id>tag:72.47.210.69,2005://1.4632</id>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/web_20_weekly_w_42.php" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=4632" title="Web 2.0 Weekly Wrap-up, 7 - 13 Nov 2005" />
    <published>2005-11-14T03:32:46Z</published>
    <updated>2007-12-16T23:15:53Z</updated>
    <title>Web 2.0 Weekly Wrap-up, 7 - 13 Nov 2005</title>
    <summary>This week: International Web 2.0, Mainstream Media Meltdown, Microsoft &quot;Leaked&quot;
docs, Web 2.0 poster children rebel, Post of the Week - samy conquers myspace.</summary>
    <author>
      <name>Richard MacManus</name>
      <uri>http://www.readwriteweb.com</uri>
    </author>
    
    <category term="Web 2.0 Weekly Wrap-Ups" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.readwriteweb.com/">
      <![CDATA[<p><b>This week:</b> International Web 2.0, Mainstream Media Meltdown, Microsoft "Leaked"
docs, Web 2.0 poster children rebel, 2.0 Post of the Week - samy conquers myspace.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.webmail.us/">sponsored by:</a><br />
 <a href="http://www.webmail.us/" border="0"><img
src="http://www.readwriteweb.com/images/webmail_us.gif" border="0" alt="webmail.us"
width="400" height="60" /></a></p>

<h2>Web 2.0 - Rockin' All Over The World</h2>

<p>This week we've seen evidence that Web 2.0 is <strike>taking over the world</strike>
reaching out to other parts of the world. <a href="http://web2.blogbeta.com/">China
Web2.0 Review</a> is a new english language blog focused on Web 2.0 developments in
China, a key market in the near and long-term future. Australians are hosting <a
href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/002933.php">Long Tail parties</a>, Spain
recently hosted its own <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/002909.php">Web 2.0
conference</a>, as <a
href="http://www.clearleft.com/services/training/dconstruct.php">did Britain</a>, and the
<a href="http://www.techcrunch.com">TechCrunch</a> format is being <a
href="http://eirepreneur.blogs.com/eirepreneur/2005/11/room_for_an_iri.html">exported to
Ireland</a> (sounds like a franchise opportunity for Mr Arrington!). Web 2.0 is happening all
over the world. Stay tuned for more announcements about this on <a href="http://readwriteweb.com">Read/WriteWeb</a> in the near
future.</p>

<h2>Mainstream Media Meltdown</h2>

<p>Chris Anderson from The Long Tail blog <a
href="http://www.thelongtail.com/the_long_tail/2005/11/mainstream_melt.html">updated us
on some mainstream media stats</a> this week. They showed that sales for box office,
newspaper, music (except for digital downloads), radio and books were all falling by
2-7%. There were "mixed" results for DVDs, TV, magazines and video games. The only media
doing consistently well is <b>online advertising</b> - banners are up 10% this year and
Google revenues are up 96%.</p>

<p>The stats were sourced from all over the place and the comments to Chris' post include
some valid criticism about the accuracy of the data - e.g. the book stats Chris used were
from 2004 not 2005. However, having done a research report earlier in the year on this
topic, I can verify that such data is extremely difficult to come by! If nothing else, it
proves that online advertising - and by extension online media - is enjoying a bumper
year.</p>

<h2>Microsoft "Leaked" Docs</h2>

<p>This week Microsoft continued its well-publicized push into the Web 2.0 world, with
the release of "leaked" documents by Bill Gates and CTO Ray Ozzie. The leak was <a
href="http://www.scripting.com/2005/11/12.html#theAnatomyOfALeak">probably
intentional</a>, but even so they contained some useful tips about where Microsoft is at
in terms of Web 2.0. IDG ran an article late this week across its publications
(Computerworld, CIO, etc) under the heading <a
href="http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/software/story/0,10801,106171,00.html">Microsoft
lacks Web 2.0 savvy</a>, or variations on that. The article quoted me extensively, but I
think I should point out that I don't think Microsoft lacks <i>savvy</i>. What they lack
is products that live up to the Live announcements and accompanying memos. But I assume
those are coming in 2006...</p>

<h2>Web 2.0 Poster Children Rebel</h2>

<p><img class="newsimage" src="http://static.flickr.com/32/62304465_59119c3f37.jpg?v=0"
alt="Illuminati" border="0" />Web 2.0 is certainly a love it or hate it affair. People
like me love it because it represents an exciting new generation of the Internet and
media, people like <a
href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/11/web_two_point_naught_answers/">The
Register</a> and <a href="http://flocksucks.wordpress.com/">Go Flock Yourself</a> hate it
(for the same reason?). There's something about the Web 2.0 meme that drives people into
either passionate, sometimes bubble-icious behavior - or enrages them into cyncial, often
foul-mouthed rants. There's not much middle ground.</p>

<p>Anyway, my point here is that some of the Web 2.0 "poster children" have decided
enough is enough and they don't want to be labelled Web 2.0 anymore.&nbsp;The Flock team
has <a
href="http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2005/11/06/open-source-projects-dont-have-launch-parties/">
banned the term 'Web 2.0'</a> from its office and del.icio.us creator <a
href="http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/2005/10/joshua_schachte.html">Joshua Schachter
is also rebelling</a> against being "the Web 2.0 poster child".&nbsp;</p>

<p>I only have this to say in response: <a
href="http://supr.c.ilio.us/blog/2005/11/11/explanations-might-be-in-order/">The
Illuminati</a> is not impressed. (<a
href="http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2005/11/11/eat-your-heart-out-gatsby-or-web-20-was-started-by-the-illuminati/">hat-tip FactoryJoe</a> for the image!)</p>

<h2>2.0 Post of the Week</h2>

<p>Never let it be said that I'm not <em>down</em> with 'the kids'. OK, so I missed seeing this
post in early October when it first came out. But it's worth highlighting now anyway, because it's a
witty and well written account of how a young guy called samy <a
href="http://namb.la/popular/">conquered myspace.com</a> with some clever javascript code. Here's an extract:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>"If I can become their friend...if I can become their hero...then why can't their
friends become my friend...my hero. I can propagate the program to their profile, can't
I. If someone views my profile and gets this program added to their profile, that means
anyone who views THEIR profile also adds me as a friend and hero, and then anyone who
hits THOSE people's profiles add me as a friend and hero... So if 5 people viewed my
profile, that's 5 new friends. If 5 people viewed each of their profiles, that's 25 more
new friends. And after that, well, that's when things get difficult. The math, I
mean.</p>

<p>Some people would call this a worm. I call it popularity. Regardless, I don't care
about popularity, but it can't hurt, right?"&nbsp;</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That's a wrap for another week!</p>]]>
      
    </content>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:72.47.210.69,2005://1.4632-comment:36595</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:72.47.210.69,2005://1.4632" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/web_20_weekly_w_42.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/web_20_weekly_w_42.php#c36595" />
    <title>Comment from Jay Fienberg on 2005-11-14</title>
    <author>
        <name>Jay Fienberg</name>
        <uri>http://icite.net/blog/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://icite.net/blog/">
        <![CDATA[<p>I'd (embaracingly) like to add my own post to your wrap-up: </p>

<p>"The only thing that deserves to be called web 2.0"</p>

<p><a href="http://icite.net/blog/200511/web2_freedom.html" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://icite.net/blog/200511/web2_freedom.html" rel="nofollow">http://icite.net/blog/200511/web2_freedom.html</a></a></p>

<p>Thought this might be another useful way to look at things.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2005-11-15T00:20:43Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:72.47.210.69,2005://1.4632-comment:36596</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:72.47.210.69,2005://1.4632" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/web_20_weekly_w_42.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/web_20_weekly_w_42.php#c36596" />
    <title>Comment from Tom Abshire on 2005-11-16</title>
    <author>
        <name>Tom Abshire</name>
        <uri>http://whatmatters.typepad.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://whatmatters.typepad.com">
        <![CDATA[<p>It is great to have a concept to ignite the web community, but I think the re-labeling is detrimental in the long run.  The risk is the broader community we all really want to serve groans a collective ìhere we go again.î  Letís focus on those users and not a new way to describe what many have been working to create over the past few years.  I have some additional thoughts at <a href="http://whatmatters.typepad.com." rel="nofollow"><a href="http://whatmatters.typepad.com." rel="nofollow">http://whatmatters.typepad.com.</a></a></p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2005-11-17T00:58:57Z</published>
  </entry>

</feed>