Web 1.0 and Web 2.0


 James
Governor provides
his thoughts on the
never-ending
discussion around the
definition
of Web 2.0.

Following
James’ format
, here are the differentiating characteristics between the Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 concepts as I see them:

web 1.0 – centralized

web 2.0 – distributed

web 1.0 – individual

web 2.0 – social, memetic

web 1.0 – content

web 2.0 – services and APIs

web 1.0 – readable

web 2.0 – writeable

web 1.0 – transmission

web 2.0 – syndication

web 1.0 – deliberate

web 2.0 – spontaneous, emerging

web 1.0 – static

web 2.0 – connected, dynamic

web 1.0 – rigid

web 2.0 – loosely couple


Comments (16)

  1. moo says:

    Web 1.0 -> Web 2.0

    Social -> Instant messaging networks

    Distributed -> P2P

    Services -> Google Maps etc

    Writable -> Wiki’s

    Syndication -> RSS

    Spontaneious -> Forums?

    Dynamic -> Pretty much everything nowdays

    Losely coupled -> adhoc networks , gaming networks etc

    Dont we have all this today?

  2. MSDNArchive says:

    moo, yes web 2.0 is today’s web, web 1.0 was the old, original web.

    re: Spontaneous:

    2 examples:

    http://hotmaps.frozenbear.com/ Hot or Not / Google Maps is one example of how new, remixed services emerge that are built on top of APIs and services not necessarily pledicted by the orginal services providers.

    The Tsumami, 9/11 and London bombings triggered a number online services run by voluntary staff providing aggregating news, emegergency help blogs aggregating, contacts lists, flickr pics, audio & video reports and first person accounts.

  3. search-engines-web says:

    Web 2.0 or 3.0 – will start the beginning of VIRTUAL VISUAL 3-D (Screens and new presentation programming), and will include Technology that icorporates the senses of SMELL, TASTE and TOUCH (virtually) – besides just VISION and HEARING as existing in present.

  4. i really like transmission and syndication.

    not sure about loosely coupled though. greasemonkey is web 2.0, in that its easy to use and improves the web user experience. but its brittle, and not URI-based.

    i agree in general – i mean remixing requires loose coupling. but from a programming model perspective its a somewhat open question.

    cant you have adhoc, lightweight, tight coupling? in asking the question i realise i sound a bit confused.

  5. Matt says:

    web 1.0 – categories

    web 2.0 – tags/folksonomy

    web 1.0 – one way communication

    web 2.0 – many ways of communication

    web 1.0 – manufactured and sold,

    web 2.0 – created by being used

  6. Danah Boyd reflects on the Web 2.0 and its relationship with the local and the global. Here’s a snippet…

  7. Danah Boyd reflects on the Web 2.0 and its relationship with the local and the global. Here’s a snippet…

  8. any comments about web 1.0 and web 2.0?

    some simple comments from web



    jgovernor :web 1.0 – content…

  9. 正在处理您的请求… // //=0xDC00 && c=0xD800 && c=wide.length) continue; s= wide.charCodeAt(i++);…

Skip to main content