Web 2 0 Way Of The Future Or Marketing Gimmick

Web 2 0 Way Of The Future Or Marketing Gimmick

The term Web 2.0 has come to​ dramatically increased usage over the​ past few years. Many people have since begun to​ appropriate this hot new buzzword for their own websites while others are not quite so eager to​ embrace this new concept,​ considering it​ little more than an​ inappropriately named web-marketing gimmick. it​ has clearly polarized the​ web into two opposing camps,​ of​ adherents on​ the​ one hand and skeptics on​ the​ other. Yet in​ spite of​ all this-or perhaps because of​ this-there is​ still plenty of​ confusion and controversy surrounding Web 2.0. What is​ it​ exactly? And are the​ changes to​ the​ way the​ Internet has come to​ be used in​ recent years really significant enough to​ warrant this name?

The phrase itself is​ attributed to​ O’Reilly media,​ the​ company who coined it​ in​ 2003. Subsequently,​ the​ first Web 2.0 conference,​ which was held in​ 2004,​ brought it​ into widespread public consciousness. a​ series if​ conferences hosted by O’Reilly media has made the​ term even more popular than ever and facilitated the​ adoption of​ it​ by many industry pundits. the​ term as​ it​ has come to​ be used by O’Reilly media,​ refers to​ what many in​ the​ Internet industry perceive to​ be the​ second wave of​ Web-based communities and hosted services,​ following the​ first wave of​ communities which flourished during the​ initial Internet boom. These web sites encompass social networking sites,​ wiki sites and folksonomies-all of​ which share the​ trait of​ encouraging and facilitating content collaboration and sharing among its many users.

Perhaps some of​ the​ confusion surrounding the​ use of​ the​ tem Web 2.0 stems from the​ fact that it​ does not actually signify a​ change or​ an​ update to​ the​ technical specification of​ the​ World Wide Web as​ we have come to​ know it. Instead it​ more appropriately describes the​ widespread changes that many systems developers have implemented in​ the​ way that they use the​ existing web platform. the​ founder of​ O’Reilly media,​ Tim O’Reilly has himself termed it​ a​ business revolution in​ the​ computer industry that was caused by the​ move to​ the​ Internet as​ a​ platform. He further goes on​ to​ say that attempts to​ come to​ grips with the​ rules for success on​ that new platform is​ an​ integral part of​ Web 2.0.

On his own blog,​ which can be found at​ http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2018/10/web_20_compact_definition.html,​ O’Reilly wrote a​ compact yet more detailed definition of​ the​ term and refers to​ Web 2.0 as​ his view of​ the​ network as​ a​ platform that encompasses all the​ devices that are connected to​ it. According to​ him,​ Web 2.0 applications are the​ applications that are in​ the​ best position to​ take advantage of​ most of​ the​ inherent benefits of​ that platform. the​ means by which they can achieve this is​ through the​ delivery of​ software to​ the​ public that is​ continuously updated and generates its content through the​ merging of​ data from many different sources,​ which may include the​ individual end user. the​ Web 2.0 applications in​ turn generate their own data as​ well as​ services in​ a​ way that other users can readily mix according to​ their own needs. This paradigm clearly goes beyond the​ nature of​ Web 1.0 into a​ network that is​ built upon as​ O’Reilly calls it​ “(an) architecture of​ participation”. the​ end result is​ a​ richer web experience for the​ end user by way of​ applications that actually get better the​ more it​ is​ used.

To further illustrate the​ differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0,​ it​ may help to​ view Web 1.0 as​ primarily focused on​ the​ connectivity between computers and a​ way to​ make technology work better for computers,​ while Web 2.0 strives to​ link people together and make technology work better for people.

While some people would disagree with this last illustration-and indeed claim that the​ opposite is​ actually more accurate-the fact remains that the​ Web 2.0 is​ increasingly reliant on​ the​ varied input from its users and the​ dividing line between people and technology is​ becoming more and more blurred as​ time goes on.

While computer mediation is​ still-and will probably remain for the​ next foreseeable future-an integral part of​ the​ new paradigm,​ the​ utilization of​ the​ collective input from its users will bring about a​ continuous improvement of​ the​ particular application based on​ the​ same users’ interaction with it.

The clear shift in​ focus from “technology” to​ “people” is​ perhaps no better illustrated by the​ change in​ technological demands from the​ ’90s to​ the​ present. While many users previously focused their requests on​ solutions to​ very specific technological demands,​ the​ overwhelming clamor nowadays is​ for applications that allow for far more end user intervention and input.

The controversy rages on​ as​ to​ the​ validity of​ the​ term Web 2.0,​ but by all indications it​ seems that it​ is​ here to​ stay.

You Might Also Like:

No comments:

Powered by Blogger.