Is Web 2.0 a scam ?
Is web 2.0 a scam ?
What do I care what Digg users have “Dugg” ? Most probably the smallest common denominator of their interests, certainly not the highest of mine.
Comments ? The comments on Youtube are amazingly uninteresting : “Oh man, that is awesome” or simply ” hahahahaha”.
Myspace…. What is Myspace for ? “Yo What’s up thanks for the ad”…
How can people spend their life on this ?
Official definition from O’Reilly is “going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences.”
Well, as the Dude says on Buzzword hell, “The Cro-Magnons didnt call themselves Humans 2.0 when they killed off all the Neanderthals…. “.
September 7th, 2006 at 9:38 am
Agreed
I like this definition found on the net:
Web 2.0 :
Users provide the data (which is then owned by the company).
Users provide the metadata (which is then owned by the company).
Users design the application (which is then owned by the company).
Users pay the company continually for the right to use the application they designed to access and manipulate the data they provided.
Edward Bilodeau, « Web 2.0: It’s all about people », Bilodeau, 21 octobre 2005.
September 7th, 2006 at 9:40 am
by the way, and this has nothing to do with the topic (although…) why do I have to leave an email adress to publish a comment. It makes it less user friendly to me….
September 8th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
Hi,
this one isn’t too bas :
“This is why I think Web 2.0 is like pornography. I can’t really define what it is, but I know it when I see it.”
more seriously jus read the complete article on this blog
http://onstartups.com/Home/tabid/3339/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/848/WhyWeb20IsLikePornography.aspx
September 8th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Thanks for the link, Nick.
I noticed the author uses the word “meme”… for Idea, concept. Check it out on Buzzword Hell : “memes and memetics are the cultural counterpart to the biological study of genes and genetics”.
Basically, I’d say it’s a common place nobody questions anymore.
Thank you Buzzword Hell.