Copacetic

Excellent. Pretty definitive.

yep, I like it!

Fundamentally, I think most of the people knocking the term just don’t *like* the idea of these developments; they *want* things to remain the same, for example with companies (who own the “crown jewels” of the code), lined up against “users” who “use” — as opposed to unruly communities who have to be relied on, and who have a partial stake in where things go.

Top-down versus bottom-up, in other words.

Justin,

I think we can add yours to the list,

Web 1.0 was top down, Web 2.0 is bottom up.

Joe.

thanks Joe! I’m sure I’m subconsciously echoing someone else, of course

Justin,

I doubt there is a single original thought in my original post. Like most (of my) ideas it’s mostly rearrangement and juxtaposition

Joe.

[...] Joe (one of our clients) has written a little comparative analysis of Web 1.0 vs. Web 2.0: [...]

Web 1.0 was about Internet Explorer
Web 2.0 is about Firefox

Web 1.0 was about spyware
Web 2.0 is about spyware

Great list Joe. I’ve linked to it, because I think it explains things in terms that even the 1.0 “old guard” can understand.

Pete, good joke re: spyware

If I may add one more, just for fun:

Web 1.0 was about them, Web 2.0 is about us.

Web 1.0 was one-way, Web 2.0 is two-way.

[...] Copacetic has a comparative analysis of Web 2.0 vs Web 1.0. Here’s some of them. [...]

[...] Marc, I can’t be fired because I don’t work for O’Reilly , I work for myself. And I also like the subversive ness at being able to put across the IT@Cork side of the story to O’Reilly readers who might otherwise be unaware of it. I let people make up their own minds – mine is that apart from any distress caused to Tom at a time when he has other priorities , I think that the O’Reilly actions are a ‘out-of-character’ mistake. It’s a mistake because O’Reilly has far more to lose from the loss of customer goodwill than gaining ownership of a particular tag. Update (2) Joe Drumgoole has a post about how O’Reilly can win back community support. (He’s also got a good explanation of what Web 2.0 is about). Update (3)  Rob Hyndman has an explanation of what it would take for somebody to ‘own’ the Web 2.0 Tag. [...]

My contribution: Web 1.0 was a bubble. Web 2.0 is a Bubbl™ (beta). Tee hee.

I disagree. Web 2.0 is only about renaming and making “old thing” easier, not about “brand new thing!”.
Web 2.0 is about reading. Not everyone has blog, most people just read — see number of active and total accounts on, say, LiveJournal.
Web 2.0 is about _company based_ communities. No matter how it’s called, most sites that provide Web 2.0 services are companies. Yes, they allow communities to form, but so did Yahoo when Blogging was not popular.
Web 2.0 is _not_ about Peer to Peer. Show me one Blog system that lives in the state of flux without a server. Any one?
XML/HTML does not matter. Transitional and strict standards are used now. Your page is HTML, not strict XML
Blogs are homepages. Just as some people were regularly posting new pages via Frontpage (scream of terror), now some people regularly update their homepage via online form. Called “Blog”. Means “Homepage”. (see MySpace)
Web 2.0 RSS is quickly goes the way of Portals. RSS feeds are aggregated. Special tools invented to group them and read in one place. Result — virtual analog of a Portal, allbeit a bit more customized.
Web 1.0 had “keywords”, Web 2.0 calls it “tags”
Web 1.0 has Wap. Web 2.0 has… well… Wap
Owning and Sharing is not linked to the type of web. Geocities is for sharing, yet Web 1.0.
Web 2.0 is about IPO and selling off to the highest bidder (See LJ deal)
Web 1.0 had free services, click-and-get-something-for-free sites and such. Now one company dominates providing free services. Is it that different?
Web 2.0 Relies on web applications (mostly), which are happily used by “Web 1.0″ sites.
Web 1.0 Aggregators did the job of Web 2.0 tool providers. Same idea, shifted focus (and if you want to include something from web 2.0 into your site/product you still need an adapter, allthough standard is nice to have)
Web 1.0 could live on broadband. But I thought you said Web 2.0 is about wireless? Both can live on broadband. Or say Hello to CNN video feeds over 56k modem.
Both web 1.0 and 2.0 now have benefit of cheaper hardware, so bandwidth costs become sizeable.

So… I don’t see any real argument on why Web 2.0 is different and why it should be called a special word. Just Blogs/Homepages all over and expansion of free services provided since “Web 1.0″ times. Buzzword and IPO fever.

[...] I found this via Darren Barefoot, a technology writer here in Vancouver: A head-to-head comparison between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. It’s a great list that explains the current revolution happening in the online world [...]

[...] I just checked my stats today and discovered that my Web 2.0 vs Web 1.0 has knocked Wilma of the top of my “most visited pages” list. [...]

> Web 1.0 was one-way, Web 2.0 is two-way.

This is fundamentally the same point as “Web 1.0 was about client-server, Web 2.0 is about peer to peer” from the original post. Easier to understand for computer-illiterates though, I guess, which is always good.

In general, I agree with Max Smolev. “Web 2.0″ is just a fancy way of saying that we do the same things slightly differently. Way overhyped. However, this bit is a tad off:

> Web 2.0 is _not_ about Peer to Peer. Show me one Blog system that lives in the state of flux without a server. Any one?

Peer to peer is the way the internet works, dude, deep down. A peer to peer system is just a two-way client-server system. What you’re saying is right, but the way you say it is wrong: if you did have a p2p blogging setup, it wouldn’t operate without servers. Everyone would be a server. Offtopic, I know, but with such a good debunking I thought I should pick out the bugs a bit.

Even the change of focus from individuals to communities is of no consequence – it was there in Web 1.0, people’re just doing it better & more easily.

Peer-2-peer as I understand it makes no demands on a particular implementation technology. Rather it offers the appearance of no centre of control or master.

As regards Web 1.0 vs Web 2.0 communities, the communities now engaging on Bebo and MySpace quitely simply didn’t exist as an entity in Web 1.0. Why didn’t they exist? Because nobody would suffer the delay of dialup to engage in a community activity.

Home users quite simply didn’t use the web in Web 1.0 because the pain was too great. These communities have been enabled by a range of Web 2.0 technologies but if you said to them, “you are part of Web 2.0″ they probably look at you crossways.

Its the convergence of all of the above that defines Web 2.0. So dissecting and debunking them one at a time makes no sense. In a similar fashion saying Web 2.0 is just about social media or social networking is equally fatuous.

[...] [Via JoeDrumgoole.com] [...]

[...] Avevo perso il link di questo interessante post….. [...]

[...] [Via JoeDrumgoole.com ]  [...]

[...] On the “introduction” page of the mind-map, I’ve added a posting from the “Copacetic” blogsite that compares the salient features of Web 1.0 to Web 2.0. [...]

[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Leave aReply [...]

ok simple terms please on what is meant by web 2.0 its all so complicated

[...] (via) [...]

[...] Si apropo de asta, o comparatie interesanta intre 1.0 si 2.0. [...]

[...] http://joedrumgoole.com/blog/2006/05/29/web-20-vs-web-10/   [...]

web2.0 is all that is happening and web 1.0 is the past , we are into the future fast ahead on the web 2.0 platform.
web 2.0 is all about live, realtime interaction between the user and the web
thats y its rightly called web 2.o(i.e… U & web).

[...] that dot points the differences between 1.0 and 2.0. If you would like to read it in full click here. Here are a few of these points to give you an understanding of what web 2.0 is all [...]

[...] Copacetic » Blog Archive » Web 2.0 vs Web 1.0 – May 2006 Nice set of comparisons, simple and clean (tags: socialmedia web2.0) [...]

[...] goes on to describe the evolution and transformation from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 and how the shift was driven by a few key advancements: broadband, blogs, ajax and social [...]

I agree with Max Smolev. Long live common sense.

There’s no such thing as Web 2.0!! It’s just renaming things that the Internet has always had. LOl! Have never seen so much marketing related gobbledygook rubbish in my life.

[...] visiting Copacetic, Solutionwatch and Paul Graham’s blog, Jocelyn regards Web 2.0 as “websites or web [...]

[...] Otto att Syntis var web 1.0 och jag web 2.0. En jämförande uppställning mellan de två hittas här, men de riktiga godbitarna finns i kommentarerna: Web 1.0 was one-way, Web 2.0 is two-way. Web 1.0 [...]

these is good example
i will take some point for my assignment idea
thanks

[...] internet is developing from web 1.0 one-way message to more personalized and interactive web 2.0 (Web 1.0 & Web 2.0). In the process, online community gradually became the focus of information and technology [...]

This is an eye opener only last week I came to learn about web 2.0 it is really agood revolution and transformation of web 1.0

[...] este propósito eis uma boa enunciação das diferenças entre web 1.0 e web 2.0, intitulada web 2.0 vs web 1.0. Consideremos esta tabela-síntese comparativa dos descritores ou características enunciadas para [...]

Excellent compilation. I have linked to this list, as I believe it explains the complicated things in a very simple way. Thanks for comments & sharing!

[...] Web 1.0 was about reading and Web 2.0 is about writing, then surely the next trend on the web (call it Web 2.1) will be about aggregating the content of [...]

[...] Copacetic » Blog Archive » Web 2.0 vs Web 1.0 * Web 1.0 was about reading, Web 2.0 is about writing * Web 1.0 was about companies, Web 2.0 is about communities * Web 1.0 was about client-server, Web 2.0 is about peer to peer * Web 1.0 was about HTML, Web 2.0 is about XML * Web 1.0 was about home pages, Web 2.0 is about blogs * Web 1.0 was about portals, Web 2.0 is about RSS * Web 1.0 was about taxonomy, Web 2.0 is about tags * Web 1.0 was about wires, Web 2.0 is about wireless * Web 1.0 was about owning, Web 2.0 is about sharing * Web 1.0 was about IPOs, Web 2.0 is about trade sales * Web 1.0 was about Netscape, Web 2.0 is about Google * Web 1.0 was about web forms, Web 2.0 is about web applications * Web 1.0 was about screen scraping, Web 2.0 is about APIs * Web 1.0 was about dialup, Web 2.0 is about broadband * Web 1.0 was about hardware costs, Web 2.0 is about bandwidth costs [...]

[...] found this comparison list of what Web 1.0 vs Web 2.0 is, or what people beleive it to be. Found at Joe Drumgoole’s [...]

[...] Drumgoole. May 29th, 2006. Web 2.0 vs Web 1.0. [...]

Web 2.0 is web 1.0 with a shiny new Jacket, a jacket that is being worn by every web site that believes that the only way to appeal to people is by using rounded corners and flashy beta tags. Slowly the jacket will get rips and tears as the public catch on to what is blatant marketing propaganda. The term web 2.0 is supposed to signify a ‘new’ web, but there is nothing ‘new’ about it. It’s still javascript. It’s still flash. It’s the same thing we have been using before. Sure, now we can collaborate and edit pages, but hasn’t this been available already? You say that Google is web 2.0, how may I ask? Apparently web 2.0 is about communities, so I’ll see you on Google later. Just because we have integrated existing technologies and packed it into dynamic, flashy, attractive pages does not mean that something new has been created. It just means that we have changed the layout.

Of course, this is only one side of the argument, some may argue that Web 2.0 is a new creation, that allows us to collaborate in ways that we couldn’t have done before. My answer to that is, We have been able to. The technology has existed all along, we just haven’t harvested it. And as soon as we do, we suddenly have a ‘new’ web. Sorry, you have not sold me. As far as I’m concerned. Web 2.0 Is just a “bubbl” waiting to burst.

[...] Otto att Syntis var web 1.0 och jag web 2.0. En jämförande uppställning mellan de två hittas här, men de riktiga godbitarna finns i kommentarerna: Web 1.0 was one-way, Web 2.0 is two-way. Web 1.0 [...]

[...] 1.0 use to just for reading, companies, client-server, home pages, and even about hardware costs. You can even go to this website were i got this information the person who wrote this was [...]

I am new to the concept of web 2.0 and this is great. Now, I can better explain it to others who truly don’t understand.

I am a webbdesign student. I read this discussion and i found it very interesting. Thanks!
Daniel

[...] Source [...]

[...] januari 27, 2009 at 10:47 är (Uncategorized) Web 2.0 vs Web 1.0 [...]

[...] the past two years I have been exploring and experimenting with Web 2.0 through trial and error.  When I realized the great potential it holds I began [...]

Great one
In one click to this place i got what i wanted.
Many Thanks.

[...] Para esquentar, traduzi o resumo abaixo feito por Joe Drumgoole, do blog Copacetic: [...]

[...] differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 collated from some suggestions by Tim O’Reilly (2005) and Joe Drumgoole [...]

Leave a Reply