The ever-eluding Web 2.0 definition
There’s one topic that never seems to die out when we’re talking about Web 2.0, and that’s the definition of Web 2.0 itself. Simply put, people don’t know what it is.
The latest trend from the experts is to either dismiss (some aspects of) the term entirely, or to exclaim that Web 2.0 can be equated with innovation as such, or the web in general.
Another recent attempt at a Web 2.0 definition brings up a good point. The author does try to distil the essence of Web 2.0 by saying that “Web 2.0 is about doing stuff on the Web that can’t done in any other medium“. The idea sounds attractive, but as a definition, it falls flat. It boils down to “A is everything that non-B is not.” Many questions instantly arise: what are these “things” that we cannot do in any other medium? And why can’t we do them?
Finally, no discussion about Web 2.0 would be complete without mentioning Tim O’Reilly’s compact Web 2.0 definition. Tim covers all the important aspects of Web 2.0. It’s hard to substract or add from it. But his definition is not without problems. It relies on a number of terms that require a definition of their own, like “architecture of participation“. Also, it contains some phrases that are too vague to be a part of a definition, for example: “going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0“.
Tim himself says he’s not fond of having to define Web 2.0, and he has a good reason for it. The problem with Web 2.0 phenomenon is that it is a multi-pronged beast. If you take all the main aspects of Web 2.0, you’ll find an application that features one subset of those aspects, and you’ll find another one that features a completely different subset of aspects. So, the problem here is finding the lowest common denominator; the absolute minimum of features some service or application has to have in order to fall under the category of Web 2.0.
The old vs. the new web
But if web 2.0 is the same as web 1.0 - as many now claim - why didn’t these new patterns of usage emerge right away? Why are we noticing them only in the past couple of years? It is because it took some time for the number of internet users to reach a critical mass and for the power of networking to start working. The internet is not just a bunch of computers connected into a network. It is - to use an ancient phrase - more than just a sum of its parts. Not only does it enable users to communicate and exchange data; there are certain ways of manipulating data that are enabled by the Internet - for example, mashups. This is - I presume - what the author of the article on ClickZ meant: the Internet creates new possibilities for data manipulation, and whenever you use them, you’re basically using Web 2.0.
So, how do we define where the ‘old’ web stops and the new web - Web 2.0 - begins? The answer is - we don’t. For example, web pages, underlined by the HTTP protocol, aren’t just a bunch of static text and images anymore - they’ve evolved and can contain what are now called RIAs (Rich Internet Applications). So, a clear-cut barrier between Web 1.0 (if I may call it that) and Web 2.0 doesn’t exist. This solves one of the many pitfalls of Web 2.0: it is not a new phenomenon, completely separate from some other part of the internet. It is simply the utilization of possibilities that only Internet can provide.
Finally, Web 2.0 defined?
So, why do we intuitively know what Web 2.0 applications and services are, but are never quite sure what separates them from the old ways of using the web? It’s because web services and application don’t always use all the possibilities that the Internet provides.
You can use the web in this way, too, but you’re not using all that it can do.
We can roughly divide the entities on the web in four categories: the users, the data they produce, their computers, connected to the internet, and the connections between the three. In general, web applications which we would probably refer to as web 1.0 are those which disregard the last part of the equation: the connections. But when we define Web 2.0, we’re not defining all that it necessarily is - we’re defining all that it can be. Thus, the definition is as follows:
Web 2.0 is a data manipulation system, consisting of individual machines connected to the internet (or any large-scale network), their users, data these users produce, and the connections between those three.
When you start harnessing the real power of networking - the connections between all the entities on the web - then you’re using Web 2.0
The important thing to notice here is that Web 2.0 is largely not possible if the applications don’t use the web as the platform. If the users create data in an online application, and this application stores this data online, and in such a way that it can be accessed and used by other users and/or applications, then we’re talking about real networking.
Since the web is not really a machine, it cannot be called a computer, but that’s what it essentially is. When you hear the word ‘computer’, you should not be thinking about a keyboard, a case, a monitor and a mouse. A computer is a machine for manipulating data according to a list of instructions (source: Wikipedia). It is that simple. When you open Flickr and start browsing images, you’re accessing the data of many different users, that was uploaded using many individual computers. Connections between the users and between the data sets are as important as the data itself. This is the part that no desktop platform can provide.
In that sense, Web 2.0 is a new kind of computer, while Web 2.0 applications are simply applications running on it.
These applications can use all that Web 2.0 has to offer: sharing, networking, mashing up, remixing and continuous updating, or they can only use some of it. That’s what “using the web as a platform” means, and that’s the key to Web 2.0. However, the web as a platform is young, undefined, volatile and not nearly robust enough at this point. That’s why trying to create an all-inclusive definition like O’Reilly’s is an impossible task, as new aspects of Web 2.0 will keep appearing in the future, when new protocols and technologies, which will make the web more platform-like, emerge. By the way, this is also why I think that any attempt at defining what Web 3.0 might be like is still pointless, as Web 2.0 has a long development ahead.
What I’ve tried to show here is that the Web has evolved, and that this evolution is recognizable in a clearly definable set of phenomena which we often refer to as Web 2.0. Is this the best way to call it? Probably not, but it is, in a sense, accurate: it is the logical progression from simply having a bunch of computers connected in a network to actually harnessing all that this network can offer.
March 20th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
At the end of the day it’s just the internet.
March 20th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Is anybody not writing about this today? Personally, I think Web 2.0 has melted. There is no longer a clear border between 1 and 2. If nothing else, Web 2.0 has given us some kick-ass plug-ins. Community publishing is cool and all, but why can’t the community then take their content with them? I just wrote about it earlier today, I’ll avoid the link though.
March 20th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
@aaron: actually, I had this article written for quite some time. I was thinking of making a white paper out of it, but today’s buzz seemed like a good time to publish it.
And yes, while I may agree that Web 2.0 as a term is overused, I’m still annoyed by the fact that most people don’t really understand what’s at its core, so they dismiss it thinking that it’s simply non-existent. It exists, it’s real, and it can be defined.
March 20th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Wow. I think I was having a seizure when I wrote that - doesn’t make much sense. Here’s a rewrite: [feel free to delete my earlier post]
I think Web 2.0 has melted and been absorbed by the wider “Web.” Social Networks are no longer Web 2.0 (IMO.) They’re just Social Networks. And I’m no longer German American.
And since I’m talking about Social Networks, why can’t the community then take the content they’re creating with them? MicroPublishers should be able to plug their content into all of the Social Networks they participate in. I’d expect content portability to be the next push. Doubt it’ll be called Web 3.0 though - that’ll take a bubble burst.
To wrap: the clear border between 1 and 2 is gone. The phenomena has lost it’s isolated phenomenon status.
March 20th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
@aaron: on an unrelated note, I love the design of Electric Pulp (:
March 20th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Thanks Stan on the ep nod - that’s appreciated. I agree that Web 2.0 can be defined. I also agree that it came and shook some stuff up. A big part of the defining characteristics of w2o, though, was that it was different (better.) It even had its own design aesthetic for a while.
I don’t think it’s different any longer. That doesn’t mean it’s gone, it just means it’s expected. Maybe I’m just tiring of the me-too apps and services - the small space innovation that used to be so exciting is slowing.
Good post by the way.
April 11th, 2007 at 4:05 am
[…] There has been many attempts to define Web 2.0 (you can read our definition here), and it still remains an unsolved issue. However, most agree on the main underlying features of Web 2.0, and among them are definitely mashups and sharing. […]
August 30th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
w20 is just another way to say that we are going to get sucked deeper into the blackhole we affectionately call the Internet…with its interactivity, pressing buttons has a new meaning for me, just click anything that looks like fun!
As for social networking, totally off the scale…eventually I hope that w20 can replace the real world for me, taking care of all of the worldly issues that I wish were lost within its halls.
May 31st, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Hi there, I was looking around for a while searching for What Is The Definition Of A White Paper and I happened upon this site and your post regarding The ever-eluding Web 2.0 definition, I will definitely this to my What Is The Definition Of A White Paper bookmarks!
July 13th, 2009 at 2:54 am
lively barred durban dbes letting encouraging skoblo isdn
July 14th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
renewal senior rajendra construes antelope subdomain sixth
July 16th, 2009 at 6:28 am
federal innovation schmuer yralgoholics hutchison pockets divbr undaf
December 30th, 2009 at 3:31 am
Hello!!! franticindustries.com is one of the best innovative websites of its kind. I enjoy reading it every day. I will be back.
January 11th, 2010 at 4:01 am
wow what a interesting post , its really
January 15th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
thanks for explaining this so clearly
January 23rd, 2010 at 11:04 am
This post has really caused me to think about several new issues in our world. Thanks for causing others to think.
January 25th, 2010 at 3:13 am
I’m always excited to visit this blog in the evenings.Please keep on churning out the content. It’s very entertaining.
January 27th, 2010 at 7:56 am
I’m always excited to visit this blog in the evenings.Please keep on churning out the content. It’s very entertaining.
January 28th, 2010 at 9:14 am
- and, if you have a decent Hi-Fi, it won’t even be “virtually” the same. If 256 Kbps AAC is the same as the original CD, well then a DivX is the same as the original DVD.
http://westblog.ru/?p=423
And a DVD is the same as a Blu-Ray. Hell, they’re all the same with that line of reasoning.
February 1st, 2010 at 10:20 am
??????????? ???. ??? ???????? ??????. ?????? 21 ??? — ????????????? ???? ?????? ?? ?????????? ????????
February 12th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
That was very useful information. I am trying to learn how to design websites by myself, and this kind of site will help me a lot in my study.
February 12th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
I’d appreciate more posts like this one, thanks.
February 13th, 2010 at 3:24 am
I love returning back to this site. You always have great interesting stuff to read. keep it up.
February 13th, 2010 at 3:25 am
I read a lot of blogs on a daily basis and for the most part simply wanted to make a quick comment to say I?m glad I found your blog.
February 18th, 2010 at 1:49 am
ocljlwijlmcds
February 18th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Trackback Submitted…
Created on the following webpage…
February 18th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Just wanted to let you know that its not showing up properly on the BlackBerry Browser (I have a Pearl). Anyway, I am now on the RSS feed on my laptop, so thanks!
February 21st, 2010 at 3:55 am
Yes, I agree
February 28th, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Hello. Great job. I did not expect this on a Wednesday. This is a great story. Thanks!
March 7th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
would it be possible to translate your website into spanish because i have difficulties of speaking to english, and as there are not many pictures on your website i would like to read more of what you are writting .
March 10th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
My name is Liz and I have a secret. I read your blog almost every day, but you you wouldn’t know that. That’s because I hardly ever leave a comment.
March 11th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
A good forex strategy which is automated is software that makes money, this is a very fascinating concept to me, why I’m interested in researching this subject.