- 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
This entry was posted
on Monday, May 29th, 2006 at 12:34 am and is filed under AJAX, Business, Ideas, RSS, Software, Web 2.0, bebo, broadband, del.icio.us, flickr.
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.
May 29th, 2006 at 11:26 am
Excellent. Pretty definitive.
May 29th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
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.
May 29th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
Justin,
I think we can add yours to the list,
Web 1.0 was top down, Web 2.0 is bottom up.
Joe.
May 29th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
thanks Joe! I’m sure I’m subconsciously echoing someone else, of course
May 29th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
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.
May 29th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
[...] Joe (one of our clients) has written a little comparative analysis of Web 1.0 vs. Web 2.0: [...]
May 29th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
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
May 29th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
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.
May 30th, 2006 at 12:04 am
Web 1.0 was one-way, Web 2.0 is two-way.
May 30th, 2006 at 4:43 am
[...] Copacetic has a comparative analysis of Web 2.0 vs Web 1.0. Here’s some of them. [...]
May 30th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
[...] 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)Â Rob Hyndman has an explanation of what it would take for somebody to ‘own’ the Web 2.0 Tag. [...]
May 30th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
My contribution: Web 1.0 was a bubble. Web 2.0 is a Bubbl™ (beta). Tee hee.
June 1st, 2006 at 1:25 am
I disagree. Web 2.0 is only about renaming and making “old thing” easier, not about “brand new thing!”.
Both can live on broadband. Or say Hello to CNN video feeds over 56k modem.
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 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.
June 1st, 2006 at 12:24 pm
[...] 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 [...]
June 2nd, 2006 at 11:15 am
[...] 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. [...]
June 9th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
> 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.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
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.
July 17th, 2006 at 6:26 am
[...] [Via JoeDrumgoole.com] [...]
July 18th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
[...] Avevo perso il link di questo interessante post….. [...]
July 19th, 2006 at 11:06 pm
[...] [Via JoeDrumgoole.com ] [...]
August 1st, 2006 at 8:43 pm
[...] 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. [...]
January 4th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
[...] 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 [...]
March 19th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
ok simple terms please on what is meant by web 2.0 its all so complicated
March 30th, 2007 at 4:38 am
[...] (via) [...]
April 13th, 2007 at 11:01 am
[...] Si apropo de asta, o comparatie interesanta intre 1.0 si 2.0. [...]
April 26th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
[...] http://joedrumgoole.com/blog/2006/05/29/web-20-vs-web-10/ Â [...]
June 1st, 2007 at 5:59 am
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).
June 4th, 2007 at 9:59 am
[...] 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 [...]
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:19 pm
[...] Copacetic » Blog Archive » Web 2.0 vs Web 1.0 - May 2006 Nice set of comparisons, simple and clean (tags: socialmedia web2.0) [...]
August 27th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
[...] 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 [...]
September 12th, 2007 at 11:38 am
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.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
[...] visiting Copacetic, Solutionwatch and Paul Graham’s blog, Jocelyn regards Web 2.0 as “websites or web [...]
October 8th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
[...] 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 [...]
October 21st, 2007 at 8:32 pm
these is good example
i will take some point for my assignment idea
thanks
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:20 pm
[...] 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 [...]
December 13th, 2007 at 10:25 am
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
January 6th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
[...] 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-sÃntese comparativa dos descritores ou caracterÃsticas enunciadas para [...]
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:52 am
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!
March 4th, 2008 at 12:57 am
[...] 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 [...]
March 22nd, 2008 at 3:38 am
[...] 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 [...]
May 1st, 2008 at 11:53 am
[...] 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 [...]
May 15th, 2008 at 1:22 am
[...] Drumgoole. May 29th, 2006. Web 2.0 vs Web 1.0. [...]
July 17th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
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.
September 4th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
[...] 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 [...]
September 12th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
[...] 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 [...]