provokeit

provoking what happens in IT

web 2.0 beta

so the saga continues.

after yesterday’s discussion on web 2.0 and dave’s comments about o’reilly, I thought I would go back to o’reilly for the word.

O’Reilly Media and CMP launched a conference that showcased the innovators who were driving it. When O’Reilly’s Dale Dougherty came up with the term “Web 2.0” during a brainstorming session, we knew we had the name for the conference.

…Web 2.0 is much more than just pasting a new user interface onto an old application. It’s a way of thinking, a new perspective on the entire business of software — from concept through delivery, from marketing through support.”

So there we have it – web 2.0 was connived to name a conference: just like “the ripple effect”, “get ready” and all of the other names given to overhype things to get people’s interest. 

I have got one response to this – check rational unified process and the iterative development process that was developed in the late 80s and refined in the 90s.

iteratively develop.

that is, take one step, prove it, take another, prove it, and repeat the process. prove the things that don’t work and finesse the things that do, making them production ready.

this stuff has always existed.

the web now makes it easier for this to do because you don’t have to package and repackage iso files on to a floppy or cd and sent to customers. microsoft just had 86,000 beta testers for office 2007 and vista in australia alone. and office 2007 and vista are so ‘not-web 2.0’.

me, I’m still looking for the big hitter here that really says web 2.0 is something new and I ain’t seeing it.

it’s just business as usual and I suspect I will make people angry over my point of view as well.

oh, and for the pundits who believe that rational is for the old school software dev, then think again, there’s a lot going on in rational for the ajax crowd.

Advertisements

November 8, 2006 - Posted by | Blogroll, technology

3 Comments »

  1. I would have to agree with your observations and opinion and no I am not angry because you are right.

    The next big hitter… there are the embryonic signs out there but nothing substantial yet. People are only just starting to make sense of “this” [add label here].

    I would have to admit, while I have a very limited knowledge of but I do “sense” that I know what the symantic web is – I’d be buggered if I had to explain it. It remains for me one of those elusive intangible concepts for me. A lot like how I feel about theoretical maths. I have a grasp of the concept (a loose one at that) however I get the gist of it. Does that make sense. It is here that I believe that the cutting edge is not with what we are calling “web2.0”. This is where the super uber geeks are playing in the digital age.

    There are whisperings of it in the blogosphere and the Internet. I see it constantly in my research for the podcast. Things like Identity 2.0 and applications like Blue Organiser are concepts that touch on what the next big hitter might be. Who knows what form that will take but I believe that is where it will be and that is a long way off IMHO. I prefer to steer clear of these topics in the podcast because we are far from experts in these things because of their complexity at this time. Call us chicken…

    I digress my mind has but wandered. Cool series of two posts will there be a Web 2.0 Theta Post?

    Comment by The Rooster | November 8, 2006

  2. there may be a third installment to come 🙂

    the symantic web as it has been described is generally where the base following conditions apply:

    . security is a premium – the underlying platform is completely secure, private and non-repudiation is standard – this is simply not the case at the moment
    . what’s presented to you is what you want, not what a search engine or app thinks you want
    . presentation is in a way that you want it
    . delivery of all services is done most effectively through the web as the only medium for communications, at all levels, all technologies and in both ‘pull’ and ‘push’ modes

    and this is not a definitive list by the way.

    I guess if I was to put a version number on what we have at the moment, it’s web 1.5. we have some of the conditions above in terms of presentation and personalisation, but those technologies to provide them have existed for some time. what’s occurring at the moment is simply a refinement of them.

    imagine a web where any company that you subscribed to provided information to a valid information storage website about you, so that the site could be tailored to meet your needs; not pre-suppose what you wanted based on potential income generating revenues that only p!ssed you off.

    there are certain examples of this going on at the moment at the base level in europe for example – internet banking aggregators – say you have 5 internet banking accounts, instead of banking at all 5 you could bank at one aggregator that has access to all 5 separate accounts.

    these are the types of services that web 2.0 would offer, although this is not web 2.0 in my mind. while some would argue that this type of app is web 2.0 is secure, in my mind it isn’t as it requires a number of other security components to drive it and is still open to all sorts of fraud.

    web 2.0 requires a massive re-architecture of the web, changing people’s mindsets and building tools that form the base architecture of this pattern.

    we are somewhere near this at the moment, but still a long way off.

    and security and non-repudiation are the key drivers.

    the biggest step forward for us all at the moment in this medium is ipsec. ipsec, unlike any other protocol defines a user at the machine level rather than at a user level.

    ipsec is only starting to gain some popularity at the moment but requires the same shift and discipline in thinking and administration that moving to an LDAP world did in the mid 90s.

    even without trying to compare apples and oranges as they exist in the current format, web 2.0 should be about removing the protocol that is driving the web at the moment – http – and replacing it with something more secure.

    see, http as a protocol is a protocol based on trust – it was never set up as a protocol with security. it didn’t need to be. because our forefathers who came up with http were using it simply to move data from one university to another in an already existent trust relationship.

    that’s the biggest failure of web 1.0.

    until this is fixed, removed or otherwise we will not have web 2.0. add new and funky products to the mix does not change the underlying problem for delivery.

    as I always say, you can put lipstick on a pig, but at the end of the day, it’s still a pig.

    btw, I don’t think of web 1.0 as a pig, it’s just a saying!

    Comment by provokeit | November 9, 2006

  3. I also wanted to add this as an analogy that I just read on Guy Kawasaki’s blog in regard to an interview that he had with Amanda Congdon.

    Amanda talks about new media and old media, and I think that, in part, this is true about web 1.0 and (the supposed web 2.0 – I’m just gonna call it web 1.5 now!)

    ‘Question: How would you describe the co-existence of old and new media?

    Answer: New media is teaching old media a few tricks like interactivity, and treating participants with respect and, let’s face it, old media knows the ropes—it has the experience. We haven’t yet figured out a perfect way to put a price tag on interactivity—or engagement—something that new media shines at, but we will in time…a very short time.

    New media is like the fiery teen who has just started to develop her own identity. It’s an identity which is unique from the identity of her old media parents, but it shares many similarities too. She wants to break out on her own, but she always crawls back home to mom and dad when she needs cash. In a couple years she’ll be an adult though, and she’ll be able to live on her own—and in harmony with her parents if I have anything to say about it.’

    you can get to the whole article here.

    http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/11/ten_questions_w.html

    Comment by provokeit | November 9, 2006


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: