My reaction after reading this article was …um what? It was a little bit to much..
To summarize this article in a few sentences, is to highlight the differences of Web 2.o. to Web 1.o
| Web 1.0 | | Web 2.0 |
| DoubleClick | --> | Google AdSense |
| Ofoto | --> | Flickr |
| Akamai | --> | BitTorrent |
| mp3.com | --> | Napster |
| Britannica Online | --> | Wikipedia |
| personal websites | --> | blogging |
| evite | --> | upcoming.org and EVDB |
| domain name speculation | --> | search engine optimization |
| page views | --> | cost per click |
| screen scraping | --> | web services |
| publishing | --> | participation |
| content management systems | --> | wikis |
| directories (taxonomy) | --> | tagging ("folksonomy") |
| stickiness | --> | syndication |
With Web 2.o, there is no hard boundary but has a gravitational core. The focus of strategic position of Web 2.o is the platform of the web. The core competencies: consists of services, not package software, architecture of participation, cost-effective scalability, remixable data source and data transformations, software above the level of a single device, and harnessing collective intelligence. Web 2.0 was created to evolve web based communities, social networking sites, blogs, tagging, and wikis. In my organization I am not sure what system the HR Department uses but I definitely know we are not Web 2.o. I do not think we will be Web 2.o for many many years.
1 comment:
thanks eric!
Post a Comment