Is Web 2.0 Succeeding?
- By: kidmercury [privmsg - website] On 5th Apr 2006 In
The chart below, from the Washington Post, suggests it might.

Participatory web sites may be getting the eyeballs, but will the cash follow?
via EchoDitto
- Y! MyWeb
The chart below, from the Washington Post, suggests it might.

Participatory web sites may be getting the eyeballs, but will the cash follow?
via EchoDitto
not sure
Still not sure why better developed websites or websites that have a interactive user experience gets the label of Web 2.0, blah.
Web 2.0 will succeed...
...as the internet succeeds.
The two are, in fact, the exact same thing.
Spam flows
And spam only flows where there's cash so that should answer your question
Seems flawed, on account of
Seems flawed, on account of most internet-using people already knowing of Yahoo, Google, eBay et al. Discovering Wikipedia or MySpace or Blogger is akin to discovering Google for the first time.
And Wikipedia's success is somewhat of the back of Yahoo (who paid for rackspace) and Google (because they hit that critical point where they start to rank for an absolute bucketload)
Guys - percentages...
So what would you rather grow - 5% of 115 million or 528% of sweet FA? Someone as big as Yahoo!, Google, MSN or eBay can't possibly grow by that sort of magnitude month on month. They'd all conquer the world in a year...
Web 2.0 my arse...
Gah! What I most hate about Web 2.0 is that it is presented using a new version number.... it's Web 1.1 at best
When we're all 'jacking in, and William Gibson is generally acknowledged as the Father of the Web instead of T B-L, then I'll concede we're at Web 2.0
A vaguely remember a few
A vaguely remember a few years back...I heard of someone somewhere wanting to expand IP addresses by an extra set of three numbers to accomodate all the new machines on the Internet.
I also thought I heard about a group of people who wanted to create 'another Internet' (Network?) to put just research stuff on that was separate from commercial stuff on the web.
I always thought Web 2.0 was alluding either one or the other of these initiatives.
But now, I see this in the news and I don't see what they are talking about. It seems like the media talks about web 2.0 and it has nothing to do with anything.
I don't get it..
>> expand IP addresses by an
> expand IP addresses by an extra set of three numbers
That's IPv6. It's simply an expansion of the address space, using 128-bit addressing, instead of IPv4s' 32-bit addressing. It would allow enough IPs for everyone on Earth to be assigned a personal IP at birth, and for every electronic device to have an individual IP too, all for quite some time, as the theoretical number of IPs available is 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456. There are a few extra gooies built in as well in terms of network efficiency etc
Web 2.0 is the appalling name used to describe just about anything using AJAX, "social" interaction, and sites needing vast sums to survive the cash burn until enough suckers, erm, users have signed up to make a revenue model possible.
To be fair, there are a handful of "Web 2.0" sites that actually have some value, sometimes not by accident! Rand has created an excellent resource here
here is the oreilly article
here is the oreilly article on what web 2.0 is.
It seems to me that open
It seems to me that open source made possible the technology by which the masses could make "Web 2.0" sites. It seems that is the key to it all and they barely mentioned it.
typical logical flaw (-ical)
Comment on the chart in OP:
You see, as internet propeties become really big -- in fact as any type of product gets a really big market share -- then growh will slow. It's as certain as the light of day. Why? Because at some point that market, or niche is saturated, meaning that the people interested in your product or service already have discovered where to get it.
So, as there are only so-and-so many people for which some product is relevant; when the number of people actually using the product reaches some level, growth will slow down.
And, of course there are much smaller products/services/ whatever that have high growth - but they're still small fish, nothing special. They just grow because demand in their niche is still bigger than supply.
So, some journalist sees two figures -- one high growth and one low growth -- and assumes that the low growth ones are losing out to the high growth ones. They are not. The low growth ones already have the customers that the high growth ones are only starting to get.
---
Just noted that they also forgot to consider that Blogger is part of Google.
The Best of Web 2.0
Take a look at http://www.koolweb2.com
Best of Web 2.0 sites ranked by actual users. Drag & drop sites to desired spot in the list and submit rankings. Overall rankings reflect cumulative average of all user submissions. Recommend a new site as well..