FridayBlowout

If you’ve encountered Web 2.0, you’re probably wondering about Web 1.0. With all the attention placed on its
successor, you might be thinking about how the shift occurred, what Web 1.0 was all about and if it is still
relevant today. And yes, there’s probably the inevitable: what does Web 2.0 have that Web 1.0 sorely lacked? Here, we examine the past and the present:

Watching or participating?

In the early days of the Internet when Web 1.0 was king, people already got excited by the fact that you could
access information, read it, be entertained and probably, if it’s really good, even copy it to keep as a personal
file or send through e-mail. The excitement was short-lived, however. People just started looking for what else was available.

Enter Web 2.0. No longer were users just passive watchers and observers – they had actually become
participants – collaborators, acquaintances, communication purveyors. And yes, we have become content creators as well. We have filled web pages with news, information, instruction, opinion, advice and recommendations, providing textual, aural and visual content for others to appreciate and share.

Linking up

If there’s one word that can describe the essence of the Internet, it’s probably hyperlinking. Every bit of  content that passes online became a part of the Web’s structure. And that structure grew like a spider’s web
connecting to thousands, even millions of other spider’s webs, as more and more people link to a page with the content they like.

Connections grow out of these links. With older Web 1.0 technologies, websites were merely destinations. With Web 2.0, websites were stop-overs, something to stay in for a while, interact with and utilize to connect with other users. These days, websites are portals through which other sources of information may be accessed.

Which one would you rather have, Netscape or Google?

Netscape is a good representative of Web 1.0 technology, defining that era so well. Netscape made it possible for you and me to use the web as a platform. Netscape was just slightly commercial, promoting the use of the webtop through a web browser and an application for desktops. They were the dominant player, so why not?

Google, on the other hand, was really just a web application. It didn’t try to sell you anything but instead offered you a great service. And no, there were no sneaky shots at trying to charge you for using their
search engine. If you wanted to pay for anything, you did so because you were free to do it.

Powered by Web 2.0 sensibilities, Google also refused to make a big deal out of improvements on their service and there were no licenses to pay for. There were also no complicated tools to use or install. It was service, pure and simple, which not only endeared them to the masses but also catapulted them to the spot they are in today.

Entertainment or more entertainment

Sure, Web 1.0 gave us fun and a few promises but it was with Web 2.0 that we were introduced to other good stuff: blogs, vlogs, social bookmarks, social networks, wikis, RSS feeds and podcasts. If you came in to be entertained, feast your eyes on these.

Reliability vs. Crash-worthy

Now that we’re coming to a close, it’s time for some reality bites. If you’re one of those who have made the
transition from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0, then you’ve probably experienced what many users have observed. Sites running on Web 1.0 technology were much more dependable in that they rarely crashed. They stayed up a huge percentage of the time.

However, that is not to say that Web 2.0 is a lame technology. Far from it. It has made many things possible for us, regardless of the demographics we belong to. Never again will we look at information, entertainment,
recreation, finance or business in the same light.

Here is where this lesson ends for today. We really hope you enjoyed this lesson too.

You will receive the next lesson in 7 days. Next week’s lesson will have the following title:

“Get Hold of Web 2.0 Marketing”

Copyright(C) 2008 by John Delavera & Reimund Lube

Trackback URI | Comments RSS