Web-as-a-platform: from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0, a conceptualization attempt

 “Message from Jeremy: To all Tech IT Easy readers, who could obviously not necessarily remember the initial announcement, I have invited my friend Steve to help me try to provide you, dear readership, with everyday better technology insights. Steve’s mission statement is that there’s no mission statement: what matters most here is to raise the right issues on underlying market trends, bringing to light new software, Internet services and consumer electronic devices. Steve, the floor is yours…”

As some of you already know, I am currently working hard on a working paper about “The different business models based on connecting Internet users .” I have already posted a help request, and the proposal remains valid …

I have already begun my research, and I am struck by the absolute mess around some concepts such as Web 2.0, social network, Web 1.0, etc… It is a headache to define precisely those keywords. We already had several posts and controversies about that on this blog, here and here. Seems like most pundits, entrepreneurs and journalists just have their own definition, and don’t bother about reaching an agreement.

Well, I’m not satisfied. So I just felt like presenting you a preliminary model : I’ll be happy to put it to the test of your sagacity. After much wandering about, I now consider that Internet has been slowly switching from a “showcase” to a “platform” paradigm. Although the trend has been there almost since the Web’s beginning, it has gained momentum in the last years, and will get some more in the forthcoming ones since Web 2.0 is the final step of this mutation.  You’ll probably recall Tim O’Reilly definition of Web 2.0 as “Web-as-a-platform”. This is not my opinion since some old business models and websites have done this for ages.

In fact, I suggest to identify three types of Web sites which appeared one after the other, following this “platform” approach (see Fig.1): Web 1.0 – such as Meetic or Monster.com ; social networks – such as LinkedIn or Friendster ; and Web 2.0 (Facebook, Youtube, deli.cio.us…). All these companies are really about connecting people, and making money for providing that service. But they are part of three different models.

 

OK, so what are the objective criteria which allow us to distinguish between these three layers ? Here’s my theory:

1.  In the first case, Web 1.0, the main point is about making “static profiles” interact. If you consider Meetic, for example, the business model is just about filling a database with static profiles and allowing each profile to browse the database.
2. Social networks introduce a further refinement: profiles are not static but dynamic, ie. what matters most is not the initial information disclosed by the profile’s creator, but rather the context in which this profiles evolve. The main point here is about enriching permanently our own profile, adding connections, or joining groups. Instead of having a glance at a profile, you’ll now “enter the world” (generally the network) of this profile. The database gets more complex, and profiles contextualization may improve without even an intervention of the profile’s owner. [ ex: the groups you've joined keep inflating, by themselves]
3. And here comes Web 2.0 ! Basically, the criteria here is about introducing user-generated content. What matters most is not the profile (take Youtube: who gives a f… about the description of each users, and who uses channels ?), but rather the content provided by the user. On top of the classical database - just filled with “profiles sheets” -, you know have a worldwide repository. Users provide content, tag it, “contextualize” it…profiles are still there, but what matters most is their actual activity, rather than their mere presence. In most cases, the Web 2.0 websites would also keep most of social network’s aspects.

These are just subjective criteria, and no Chinese Walls. It is not difficult to jump from one paradigm to the other. For example, allowing to browse a specific user’s relatives on Meetic would be enough to make it a social network. And Facebook is indeed a social network which can boast itself as “Web 2.0″ compliant, just because users can enrich their profiles with photos, articles, etc….

 Now, let’s get into it: what is your opinion about this model ? Can you help me improve it ?