Comments on: We’re Still Defining Web 2.0 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2008/04/28/were-still-defining-web-20/ Jeff Nolan's take on investment, innovation, entrepreneurship and the technology industry Mon, 06 Feb 2012 06:44:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: crazy multiplayer casino online http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2008/04/28/were-still-defining-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-283285 crazy multiplayer casino online Sun, 20 Jul 2008 04:08:45 +0000 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2008/04/28/were-still-defining-web-20/#comment-283285 <strong>crazy multiplayer casino online...</strong> Britisher fourteenth,Ithacan scheduling ... crazy multiplayer casino online…

Britisher fourteenth,Ithacan scheduling …

]]> By: Craig Tobias http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2008/04/28/were-still-defining-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-270275 Craig Tobias Sun, 11 May 2008 19:22:10 +0000 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2008/04/28/were-still-defining-web-20/#comment-270275 I hear a lot of discussion around defining Web 2.0; I think simpler definition is better such as “user based collaboration and content generation”. There are a number of people who want a clear cut definition on exactly what Web 2.0 is and everything encompassed by Web 2.0. This is analogous to asking for a list of every animal that exist now or has ever exist before they are willing to talk about dogs or buffalo. Even today new species are being discovered. If I may barrow the famous words of the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Steward, “I may not be able to fine it, but I know it when I see it.” Web 2.0 is still growing and evolving this is why it is still so hard to define. The biggest issue facing Web 2.0 is not technology. Most of the technology used in Web 2.0 has been around for quite some time. It is the application of this technology which is special. Here is the analogy I use for those who say that there is nothing new in Web 2.0. Using this approach one could argue that there is no such thing as a democratic state. That before the 1700s there were people, states, and governments and democracy is just made of these three elements. Well, we know that it is not the elements but their application which is different. Craig Tobias Solutions Architect Cisco Systems. I hear a lot of discussion around defining Web 2.0; I think simpler definition is better such as “user based collaboration and content generation”. There are a number of people who want a clear cut definition on exactly what Web 2.0 is and everything encompassed by Web 2.0. This is analogous to asking for a list of every animal that exist now or has ever exist before they are willing to talk about dogs or buffalo. Even today new species are being discovered. If I may barrow the famous words of the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Steward, “I may not be able to fine it, but I know it when I see it.” Web 2.0 is still growing and evolving this is why it is still so hard to define.

The biggest issue facing Web 2.0 is not technology. Most of the technology used in Web 2.0 has been around for quite some time. It is the application of this technology which is special. Here is the analogy I use for those who say that there is nothing new in Web 2.0. Using this approach one could argue that there is no such thing as a democratic state. That before the 1700s there were people, states, and governments and democracy is just made of these three elements. Well, we know that it is not the elements but their application which is different.

Craig Tobias
Solutions Architect
Cisco Systems.

]]> By: NoteSake « Ethald’s Weblog http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2008/04/28/were-still-defining-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-267883 NoteSake « Ethald’s Weblog Mon, 05 May 2008 00:02:32 +0000 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2008/04/28/were-still-defining-web-20/#comment-267883 [...] We’re Still Defining Web 2.0 [via Zemanta] [...] [...] We’re Still Defining Web 2.0 [via Zemanta] [...]

]]> By: Chris Lynn http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2008/04/28/were-still-defining-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-265287 Chris Lynn Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:53:05 +0000 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2008/04/28/were-still-defining-web-20/#comment-265287 Hi Jeff: The Internet is definitely in the middle of transformation; we have so much content/data, but no we of accessing it. By talking about where we are at, we can try to reckon where we are going. Plus, we've experienced such a sharp increasing in emerging technologies that we have to sort of figure out what we are going to do with all of it. Ultimately, "Web 2.0" is just a term of reference to describe this period of growth! Thanks for the link. Chris Hi Jeff:

The Internet is definitely in the middle of transformation; we have so much content/data, but no we of accessing it. By talking about where we are at, we can try to reckon where we are going. Plus, we’ve experienced such a sharp increasing in emerging technologies that we have to sort of figure out what we are going to do with all of it. Ultimately, “Web 2.0″ is just a term of reference to describe this period of growth!

Thanks for the link.

Chris

]]> By: Ron Davison http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2008/04/28/were-still-defining-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-265279 Ron Davison Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:17:00 +0000 http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2008/04/28/were-still-defining-web-20/#comment-265279 Maybe it would be more apt to simply name it Web 2.o-ish and realize it's a work in progress. Maybe it would be more apt to simply name it Web 2.o-ish and realize it’s a work in progress.

]]>