Today, a friend and pal asked me how I defined Web 2.0 companies, and I have to say that, for once, I felt pretty pride of my immediate answer (I usually ask for a few days’ delay to avoid talking non sense). I acknowledge not so many people might really care about my view point, but this post can be a nice kick-off for a debate.
So there you go:
“Web 2.0 companies are companies smart enough to make users do the job.”
So, if you want to help me update this blog from Tech IT Easy 1.0 to Tech IT Easy 2.0, do the job and leave value-adding-or-not comments. Start with adding this very stance to your resolutions for 2007.
Very fine definition of web 2.0 companies, Jerem. Not too large, not too restrictive.
Just one idea on the origin of these companies: I believe that Internet lives a phase of natural regulation. The overwhelming flow of information can not be managed by the only force of small web companies. Thus, the origin of web 2.0 companies is directly related to our need of organizing and structuring information in order to make it understandable.
Comment by Rupert Schiessl — January 2, 2007 @ 12:41
Thanks Rup. Well, my definition might actually be a bit restrictive, but so far I cannot think of a counter example. Web 2.0 companies provide a platform and the scaled infrastructure for users to produce and play with content.
I totally agree with your stance regarding natural regulation: some companies will become business-as-usual brands, others will die.
I like your last sentence but I guess I can’t understand all of it: do you mean search tools like Google are at the center of the Web 2.0 concept (cf. Dave Winer – see my blogroll, I was early – Time Magazine, “You” are the Man of the Year)?
Comment by Jeremy Fain — January 2, 2007 @ 14:33
As declared clearly in Google’s mission statement (“Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”), search tools will take a major place in the structuring of the web’s information.
Two major problems appear:
1) They can’t do it
2) It’s better if they don’t do it
1) Even giants like Google will not be able to do this job alone. The fast growing WWW content creates its own user-related structure to become accessible. Semantic web and P2P search engines are the natural (intelligent) consequence and might be integrated by today’s major research engines soon.
2) Information created, commented or rated by users, is more interesting and richer than content generated unilaterally. Thus, companies providing “web 2.0″ content will be more successful.
I believe that these are the two main points lanching a “natural regulation” of the WWW based on user driven content.
Comment by Rupert Schiessl — January 2, 2007 @ 15:02
Allright Rup, thanks for this interesting clarification.
Comment by Jeremy Fain — January 2, 2007 @ 15:36
Jeremy, so this is why you asked me to write an entry… user generated content. But you’re right, but let’s see if in 2007 we, the users, find a way to profit from our contributions. because all these web 2 .0 business plans are starting to resemble feudal system quite soon.
Comment by Kari — January 2, 2007 @ 18:04
Kari, don’t we already profit from our contributions through free access to Youtube, Wikipedia or FlickR?
Comment by Rupert Schiessl — January 2, 2007 @ 20:51
[...] Valley, user-generated content — Jeremy Fain @ 2:25 am Two weeks ago, I posted what is my definition of Web 2.0 COMPANIES. I just came up with my own (bloggers like redefining everything) of the Web [...]
Pingback by My definition of the Web 2.0 « “Tech IT Easy” - Jeremy Fain’s Blog — January 15, 2007 @ 02:31
[...] 23 de Marzo de 2007: También se habla de ello en sitios como Social Something, Joining Dots, Jeremy Fain, web2logo, web 2 at school, The difference… , y otra definicón de la casa. También me han [...]
Pingback by Estudio de red | Blojer — March 23, 2007 @ 18:35
[...] generation of candidates brings new means of communication. My friend Jeremy (the Tech IT Easy guy) found a good definition of Web 2.0 : “Web 2.0 companies are companies smart enough to [...]
Pingback by French Presidential Election: Democracy 2.0 « e-remediable — May 22, 2007 @ 01:13