This week, SIMS students came together to discuss Web2.0 – what is it and is it relevant to us? In the process, i found myself expanding my own understanding of what’s going on and i wanted to share my thought process here, mostly to get push-back. Some of this is repetitive of others and my own thoughts, but i needed to write it all down for sanity sake.
Ebbs and Flows
I don’t know many people who are a fan of the term Web2.0, but i also don’t know a better term. Sure, folks talk about the semantic web and the read/write web but this is only a fraction of what’s going on. Of course, Web2.0 is a business term… and for good reason. Let me explain.
The technology industry has its phases. Long before the masses were online, people were breaking down boundaries and talking to others across space and time. We were working towards a global village where everyone could share their ideas and passions. For all intents and purposes, it was small, intimate and homogenous. And then some businesspeople realized there was money to be made and we rushed full-speed into the boom.
Looking back, there are a lot of reasons to twitch about the boom (and they usually involve ill-will wishes directed at MBAs). Beneath the hype and chaos, there was genuine enthusiasm. This motivated so many people to think creatively, to expand their horizons, to envision a future and work towards it. It was like MDMA was being pumped through the faucets – serotonin was flowing everywhere.
And then, ::crash:: the Tuesday blues set in and people wandered the streets of SF looking like corpses without a bride in sight.
There is no doubt that things are uber hyped up right now. And that folks are a bit wary of hype. But why do ravers roll even when they know about the Tuesday blues? Because the high is worth it. Folks are brimming with creative thoughts, engaged with glitter in their eyes and really really wanting to innovate. Hype does that, even if it has a cost.
More than anything, what Web2.0 is demarcating is this hype, the next rush of enthusiasm that is hitting web developers. And it’s already playing out in creativity, in passion, and in money. Of course, i saw enough MBA types at LoveParade yesterday to make my hair curl.
Economic Pressures
In Code, Lessig reminded us to always pay attention to four pillars that work as forces in all sorts of change: market, law, society and architecture (code). When all four align, evolution leaps forward. The boom emerged when market and architecture aligned in a way that brought society along. By and large, law stayed out of things. And then, it all came crashing down with the market and architecture splintering (no business model), the realization that society wasn’t as enthused (“why do i want to buy everything online?”) and increasing pressure from law (MS vs. Netscape, Napster).
We’re in the next wave of collusion – the market and architecture are back at it, only this time, they’re a little more aware of the importance of society (but still terrified of law). Web2.0 is the business term for this collusion, an attempt to mark a shift.
I’ve heard lots of folks bitch about labeling something to create a shift. “There is no sudden shift!” they complain. Technologically, they’re right. Things have been progressing pretty linearly. Most of what is marked as Web2.0 technology is nothing new – glorified javascript, newly packaged publication tools, explicitly acknowledged openness. There’s no technological shift happening but there is a very noticeable business shift.
Let’s back up a bit. After the crash, left in the ruins were a handful of big companies in various degrees of shambles. Microsoft, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo!, Macromedia… For the most part, these companies weren’t in competition and they spent the next couple of years trying to retrofit their companies, trying to make them a little more earthquake-resistent. Along came Google. At first, no one cared and many loved to quirky search company. But, slowly, Google has come to compete with every one of the boom survivors on their own turf. Alongside Google, energy re-emerged and start-ups began popping up, innovating in entirely new ways. This re-awakened the big beast-like survivors of Round 1 and we are back in full competitive swing. Of course, the competition is fascinating because people are having different approaches. Acquisitions are happening left right and center (four billion dollars!?!?!?). Google has never really seen competition before. Microsoft is more afraid of D.C. than other tech companies and so they’re innovating in Asia to compete. Adobe is playing a Microsoft and simply buying their competitor (under the polite term “merger”). Web2.0 is a marker of the re-invigoration of competition more so than technology.
The fun thing about academics is that we’re obsessed with long-term frameworks and we like to understand patterns situated in some broader body of knowledge. Some of us are sitting back trying to make sense of what all is emerging and what its economic, legal, social, and technological implications are going to be. We are the meta.
And we’re off…
There will be increasing technological advancements, but to be significant will require adoption on a social level. Yeah, javascript and amateur publishing have been around but in the last two years, we’ve seen genuinely mass adoption because of AJAX and blogging tools. Of course, the funny thing is that i keep seeing adverts for “Web2.0 Developers” but i still haven’t seen an advert for “Web2.0 Social Scientists.” We are still working in an advertising economy which means eyeballs matter and acquisitions have shown that adoption matters. So why not hire people who understand people’s needs? Anyhow…
I think that the biggest loose canon is the business model of all of this. Are we really comfortable relying on advertising still? How long will that last? Is there an economic innovation this round?
I also still believe that the answer to figuring out a lot of this is glocalization. It is not just about the social component, but introduces the legal, market and technological needs. We’ve got to move beyond the global village and focus on how people will repurpose it for their needs. This is why i think that issues of remix are essential to this narrative. What hiphop artists and anime remixers are doing is teaching us what it means to consume and produce as a connected process. In tech land, this is the value of OpenAPIs – this is fundamentally about remixing technology. Of course, all the efforts to legitimize this are dangerous. Part of the glory of hacking and remixing is the rebellious feeling of resistance. More importantly, anyone remixing is understandably wary of the institutions who are opening up or creative commons-ing the process. Aside from not wanting to be told what to do, there is fear of being too reliant on the master. This is part of the trick of OpenAPIs and CC licenses – they allow the owners to maintain power through a different incentive system. You are meant to feel like you have access as long as you want, but the one who giveth can taketh away. That, of course, is a longer conversation. But it’s important to remember that the power issues in remix are not solved by OpenAPIs and CC licenses. Of course, i’m all in favor of OpenAPIs because i think that they will push us further into remix culture, much to the chagrin of current hegemonic institutions. We just need to be careful so that we don’t get it all banned.
So what will Web2.0 be? Right now it’s hype that’s motivating innovation. Should it be slowed down for fear of another crash? Or should it be encouraged because innovation will occur? How do we keep greed from running the innovation ship aground? How can academics provide valuable frameworks and how can academia and industry learn from each other? How does business innovate on a social level without just simply trying to hoc their wares? How is law going to try to slow this down (remix is definitely playing with fire)? How will it support or disrupt hegemony? How can this innovative energy move beyond a few regions?
I know a lot of folks who don’t want to engage because of the hype. (It’s funny – business gets energized by hype; academia gets cynical.) For me, i think that everyone who cares about the next 5 years of technological innovation and techno-social culture needs to be involved and help move the big ship in a positive direction. Otherwise, it will collapse in the hands of business rather than pursuing its potential to affect people’s lives for the better.
I think another thing to factor into the progression of the internet is open source movement. Until recently, there were very few options when you wanted to do word processing, spreadsheet, ect. you bought either MS Office or got by however you could. Now with OpenOffice.org, it has made the playing field more even. I believe that if Linux developers can get the operating system more user-friendly, computer and internet usage will double.
James – i don’t know that i agree with you. The Open Source rhetoric works in some countries far better than others. (Talk to Ethan Zuckerman about why it doesn’t work in Africa at all.) Power is a far greater limitation to computer/internet usage than usability. I think that you will see things double because they go mobile (small devices and increased power strategies), not because they go open source. It’s interesting to think who uses word processing and spreadsheets and whatnot. Usage is deeply entwined with knowledge workers and very separate from Internet use. I think that the application goals are about information access, communication and sharing of ideas/values. As such, HTML is already the open source language for doing this.
Hmm… I am not sure I agree with the call of “social scientists join the Web2.0! all aboard!” 🙂 Mainly because I believe that with focusing on the new ideas and energy that are being tried out right now (many of which will probably not work and be forgotten by year’s end) we are in danger of disregarding (yet again) what are the issues around large-scale adoption and use of technologies and the rifts along the borders between people who have an idea of what Web2.0 is and those that do not.
Right now, we are encountering some ofthe most interesting effects of technology adoption – all those expectations of what Internet will do for us from 10 years ago suddenly becoming questions that can be answered (often those expectations were wrong, but never completely). As Web2.0 moves on with gusto, we must, I think pay attention to effects of those “old” technologies as they are now performing at a large scale – we need to talk about using the Internet in general and email specifically, about learning to find the right information, about discovering the ability to forward photos to family and friends. All those things many of us consider “normal”.
I have a suspicion that we need this conversation because it is essential for us to understand what impact this has on the general population if we are going to try and project the trajectory of Web2.0 over a longer timespan than the next few years.
I’ve kept quiet on this discussion for long enough. I have a huge problem with the term, but not because its a business term. My beef is that I think the term “Web 2.0” is far too constraining. There is so much going on out there in the world that is just very un-web. I work building mobile/social/web software. I suppose it entitles me to join the Web 2.0 party, but what of all those folks building groundbreaking mobile software? Or what about the techies working on instant messaging and VOIP? Do we marginalize that work because they’re not (for good reasons) using AJAX?
The term is appropriate for what the business folks are trying to build, but why not look further into the future? It’s a good term, and it gets the job done–for now, and on the web. But if we want to roll in everything else–stuff that is potentially even more groundbreaking, then we’ve got to include the un-web (2.0) as well.
The other issue I have is that we all know the point-oh release will be buggy as hell. Maybe I’ll wait it out until web 2.1 😉
Another interesting perspective besides the academic and upper-eschelon of business is the grunt perspective. I’ve heard many of the people I work with in various projects that have day jobs in Silicon Valley say simply, “something’s happening.” When I press them further in full qualitative-interview mode, they say, “I’m not sure what it is but something is happening. There are more jobs, more good jobs, more interesting jobs. Also, there is more pressure on people working at firms that survived the crash.”
It’s funny that the grunts don’t label it as anything other than “something’s happening”… I like it.
I think that the business model of advertising only is going to run its course in due course. The kicker is that I think that we are going to start paying for services. This will be a departure from the current system of everything free. In the sense that ‘eyeballs’ were eventually debased, ‘page views’ will soon loose their luster and the value of online advertising will slowly sink. The companies and systems that produce real value will succeed no matter how big or small. I think the next iteration of the web will be leaner, and more efficient. My hopes are that VC will see through this and fund the real value creators.
More Web 2.0 Thoughts & Graphics
In a post at the Social Software Weblog, Barb Dybwad joins the recent round of online discussion of Web 2.0, starting with praise for the relatively simple definitions offered by Richard MacManus and Susan Mernit, which we cited in an…
More Web 2.0 Thoughts & Graphics
In a post at the Social Software Weblog, Barb Dybwad joins the recent round of online discussion of Web 2.0, starting with praise for the relatively simple definitions offered by Richard MacManus and Susan Mernit, which we cited in an…
O’Reilly on Web 2.0:
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
Web 2.0 Weekly Wrap-up, 26 Sep – 2 Oct 2005
This week: Defining Web 2.0, Web-based office, Yahoo media/tv, Google Wifi, Techie Post of theWeek: Tim O’Reilly’s What is Web 2.0.
For me Web 2.0 is about shifting from Macro content to Microcontent. Macro content on search engines is mixing relevant paragraphs with irrelevant ones. The new ability to manipulate Microcontent will eventually change the way we understand things since not following the line of the authors’ thoughts brings you to an intimate contact with your own thoughts.
Irina – i totally agree that folks need to be looking at the “normal” stuff but i also believe that we are currently in the design phase of things that are going to be “normal” ten years from now. Not everything will succeed but that which will will have extraordinary effects. Social scientists understand the effects that design has which is why i really want them involved if for no other reason than to make certain that what they study 10 years from now will be as people-centric as possible.
Jeff – AJAX is not the end-all-be-all of Web2.0. For me, when we talk about “web” it’s not just what’s available in the browser (although some folks are pushing to make everything in the browser). I also believe that a lot of what’s going on is mobile. But it’s all about networks and to me, that’s what the web symbolizes. That said, i totally understand the complaints with the term.
Web 2.0 and Many-To-Many
So, when this blog started, it was intended to capture various aspects of social software. The hype has kinda gotten taken over by Web2.0. But what is the relationship between Web2.0 and social software? And what about Many-To-Many? Over on…
I’m glad that you raised the business model issue. I think there are more than a few potential business models in this newer “Web 2.0” technology. It’s going to take creative thinking to realize those potentials, though. The economic/business perspective in America and Europe is that more traditional industries will be outsourced or offshored to developing areas. There are, however, increasing emerging possiblilities that solo-entrepreneurs, or corporations consisting of one person specializing in certain skills can become freelance outsource destinations for companies that decide to outsourc emore nd more of their processes. Some of these tools being marketed as “Web 2.0” could become a core part of solo-entrepreneur or “nano”-corp infrastructure. In other words, individuals could come together as many solo-corps who collaborate in a partnership as support for a larger business, using different so-called “web 2.0” and conventional software tools.
There is also the collaborative aspect of these ideas, which was largely missing form the dot.com hype boom days. This is definitely a different social paradigm, it is actually a partially realization of some of the hype that those orignal dot bombers used to sell technology to investors.
Danah, you raise some great points in both of the posts on this subject. I hope more more people decide to take a look at your thoughts and thoroughly consider them.
eBay enabled small merchants to sell globally. Web 1.0?
Google enabled small merchants to advertise globally. Web 2.0?
Integration of Web and mobile messaging service is the only reason that some Chinese web portals were able to be listed on Nastaq – web sites don’t make money. Web site content generated mobile messaging do. Web 2.0?
For academics and IT developers, Web x.x has to be defined as such (AJAX or RSS, etc.), but for “social scientists”, or rather, businesses, the challenge has always been:
How do I benefit, or make money – with this new gadget, software, scheme and, scam?
Until this question is addressed, a jargon is but a jargon, whether it is Web 1.0 or Web 5.0
What is the future of the blog?
During a recent conversation with a friend about blog technology, I realized that there is a definite backlash of sorts against different aspects blogging among some people. I have personally embraced blogging, because I see it’s current and future pot…
Another interesting perspective besides the academic and upper-eschelon of business is the grunt perspective. I’ve heard many of the people I work with in various projects that have day jobs in Silicon Valley say simply, “something’s happening.” When I press them further in full qualitative-interview mode, they say, “I’m not sure what it is but something is happening. There are more jobs, more good jobs, more interesting jobs. Also, there is more pressure on people working at firms that survived the crash.”