Finally, Web 2.0. Cool! At last we got a new version of the Internet...

So today everything is about Web 2.0 and fancy stuff, and new technology, and the users who can finally do what they want to, and easy use and easy go, and yes, thank you, you know the bubbles business men and privateers are bubbling about this new invention raising the Internet to a new Version "2.0"

... but what is Web 2.0?

Be honest, can anyone tell what Web 2.0 is really all about? Does anybody have a definition what this Web 2.0 exactly is? Well, this does not lack any - more or less - definitions of the term itself, there are plenty of them. The problem is that many people do understand completely different concepts that define Web 2.0 for them. One definition may be found at Web 2.0 awards - Zeitgeist where Web 2.0 - pages are defined as

1. web-applications that use the web in innovative ways
2. containing user generated content
3. have a certain similiar design
4. are including popular trends like blogging or wikis
5. include new technologies like AJAX or RSS-feeds
6. mostly use Open Source Software to achieve this goals

Dividing the intensions

So what is Web 2.0? A brief try to an introduction

Searching for the term Web 2.0 in the web, Google reveals: "Web 2.0 is a term often applied to a perceived ongoing transition of the World Wide Web from a collection of websites to a full-fledged computing platform serving web applications to end users. Ultimately Web 2.0 services are expected to replace desktop computing applications for many purposes." Well then, Web 2.0 is something that happens in your browser and parts the "static web", to say, statically placed web pages which need a "confirm"-button on each page to change or add content to new, interactive, AJAX-Web 2.0-application web sites. "Static web pages?" you ask, "like h2g2? Is that a static web page?"

No, it is not. Every page you might interact with is not static. But Web 2.0 is somewhat more, a site between that what people would call "the old web" - which hardly is ten years old - and the "new web" (Web 2.0) with kinds of interacting pages. h2g2 fulfills one necessary part of the Web 2.0: It is build on a community which thrives the site and tries to prosper it.

But that would not explain such phenomenon's like Google Maps (Google Maps) where you just push a slider with your mouse to zoom in or out. Technology evolved. Try a web page and its features like Zimbra (Zimbra), it looks like an application to manage your emails/contacts/deadlines, more like Outlook or Pegasus, it collaborates you and it does not look and feel just like another web page, it behaves more like an application than a browser application (though all you need is a browser to run it).

No reload times for the page (as known from the "post"-button seen here), no waiting for server requests. Believe it or not, you have to see what "real Web 2.0 applications" like Writely or others can do to your browser without installing a single peace of software, it is accessible everywhere from around the world storing your data in it. That. of course, only as long as you have internet access. The world is changing. And the business world is bubbling, fascinated again, all those opportunities... .

The social part of Web 2.0

This is what pricked up on the ears of most enterprises doing internet business last year. "Whut?" they said, "people are going social using the internet? They mesh up, create a community for themselves and others? Create content in the web and do visit these pages without advertisement? Cool, money for nothing, and the hype-party drinks for free! Lets do too." . It is a little bit like a dream coming true: You do not even have to create (paid) content to attract people to your site and earn a fortune i.e. in placing advertisements there. You do not even have to attract people, the Web 2.0 - notion will attract the people by its own. The people will build groups, online communities and spread the word of mouth between their friends, colleagues and family-members.

On the other hand Web 2.0 is not an enterprise-driven thing all by itself. Like most hype-a-waves before, no company can accomplish to create such a hype-i-ness like Web 2.0 all alone. The normal lifecycle of hypes is that someone "invents" or "finds" the hype, it goes a little bit underground, bubbles up and, finally, is taken serious by industry.

In the old days of old economy, a "need" for something was created - more or less - after the product was available. In the new days of the new economy bubble there often was no need for needs, the products were generated anyway in any unbelievable short time because they were "virtual" products (no such long turnaround times of product development, simply compare the creation of a web-shop with the creation of a Bentley). Well, Web 2.0 lies anywhere between these two approaches: Its not that new but its new enough to create a hype of it. "Web 2.0 is not new? Why, its burning! Prove otherwise!"

Prove that it is not a new idea? The idea behind a community that bundles the web, the web-citizens and their contributions to the web is not really that new. Take Yahoo as an example for that, bundling many parts of what is yet called “the new web” for years. But they did it not as user-friendly as some of the Web 2.0 applications are doing it nowadays. ZDNet with its editors (on a "fairly free base" : ) is an other example for that, they gathered people to write (valuable) content and, in some kind, it worked. Heck, even h2g2 is an example for that, even better, it's idea bases on the idea of people going social and linking their life together like having a Web 2.0 long ago. Of course without these kind of "need-to-have-technology" to make a hype of it.

The technical part of Web 2.0

“Technically” they were on-line years ago having the same ideas which formed a part of the base of Web 2.0 nowadays. Why didn't the Web 2.0 - idea (as totally hyped yet) came out just some year ago? Why did they seriously mention it in the middle of last year for the first time? Why not years ago?

It seems that the social part would not have been enough to justify a "new decade" in the Internet. It is more like a novel written by Stephen King, one plot might be interesting, but you need two plots to get the whole thing running (try to read his books with that fact in mind, you will see the story and the flow of his books a little bit different).

And this second plot is explained pretty simple: The techniques were ready for something that may be promoted as Web 2.0. As anything in Internet, Web 2.0 is accessed by using (so-called) web-browsers. These are nowadays more compatible, more able to provide the techniques used by Web 2.0 - applications. It is more easy to code a web-page having dynamic elements today than it was two or three years ago, simply because more users are using web-browsers compatible to the new techniques than “in the old days” and programmers can rely on that fact.

The pages do not need to reload fully using a Web 2.0 page, the user has not to wait (for this obvious kind of reloading the whole page) and somewhat directly gets response and a feeling that the application is reacting on his input, that he is involved into the pages. This is done through the use of new frameworks, spoken on the technological side, possible through the new techniques available by new browsers used. Additionally, some “simple-to-use” concepts like Wikis and Blogs matured and waited to be Web-2-alized (at least by use of the medias, or who do you think blogger.com belongs to?). If you search for it, you will find software that accomplishes that and is totally free available through the FSF-branded GPL-license.

And - last not least - bandwidth is cheap today. What was nearly unreachable (or not affordable) in the "net" five or ten years ago can be done with petty cash today. These financial/technical issues mellowed to be no border any more.

So, what really concerns?

Why, oh why should such a long article be written? Well, Web 2.0 is evil (or at least, it won't work out), that’s the thing in here? Right?

Wrong. The idea of putting it all together, with cheap (or no-cost) tools is a great thing for its own. Even if you pay a reasonable price for Web 2.0 - software, it is okay as long as the system does what you need it to do. No complaining on that side. But there are points everyone should consider for his own (and it's the same if he is enterprising or privateering):

1. For users: Everything put on the web can (mostly) not simply be withdrawn. Think of all your entries you made about your silly boss at http://www.blogger.com or all the photos you published of your former boy-friend at http://www.flickr.com. The web does not forget. More over: The databases you put your content in do not forget. Even if you got the possibility to definitely delete the stuff from the pages, does your boy-friend forget or might he not even publish something?
2. For companies: Even though it looks like a great idea to start a company like "Writely" and earn millions of dollars by being sold-off to Google, nine of ten (or ninetynine of a hundred?) Web 2.0 companies will not have that luck. If you run an enterprise think for yourself, think of a plan your company should follow, don't rely on the hype. Stay serious, but have your dreams.
3. For both: Nothing is for free, you always pay a certain amount for it, let's call it "the price". And be honest, is a virtual platform really able to solve all your problems?
4. For all: You really want all your data sketched up in some databases in the internet around the world or is that something you should - at least - ponder about once more?

So lets hope that Web 2.0 is liberating everyone and solves the problems we all have. But, alas it's the Internet, you should not rely on it.

This article was inspired by the sentence of a partner of mine saying: "Editors? Hey, content will be created by our Web 2.0-users only, they'll write it, don’t you bother!" and the BBC corporation.