Avevo perso il link di questo interessante post…..
Per fortuna c’è Technorati!
Il Web 1.0 a confronto con il Web 2.0:
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
Qualcuno non è d’accordo con queste definizioni:
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.
A mio parere, invece, è un bel modo per cercare di definire i contorni del Web 2.0.