O'Reilly Network: What Is Web 2.0
Popularity Report
 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rank
URL Tag Cloud
Bookmark History
Saved by 179 people (-33 private), first by anonymouse user on 2006-03-02
Public Sticky notes
Could it be that the dot-com collapse marked some kind of turning point for the web, such that a call to action such as "Web 2.0" might make sense?
Highlighted by absolut
Software licensing and control over APIs--the lever of power in the previous era--is irrelevant because the software never need be distributed but only performed, and also because without the ability to collect and manage the data, the software is of little use. In fact,
the value of the software is proportional to the scale and dynamism of the data it helps to manage.
Highlighted by ebreece
If Netscape was the standard bearer for Web 1.0, Google is most certainly the standard bearer for Web 2.0, if only because their respective IPOs were defining events for each era. So let's start with a comparison of these two companies and their positioning.
Highlighted by joel
Therefore: Leverage customer-self service and algorithmic data management to reach out to the entire web, to the edges and not just the center, to the long tail and not just the head.
Highlighted by joel
panies are now pasting it on as a marketing buzzword, with no real understanding of just what it means. The question is particularly difficult because many of those buzzword-addicted startups are definitely not Web 2.0, while some of the applications we identified as Web 2.0, like Napster and BitTorrent, are not even properly web applications!) We began trying to tease out the principles that are demonstrated in one way or another by the success stories of web 1.0 and by the most interesting of the new applications.
Highlighted by joel
The concept of "Web 2.0" began with a conference brainstorming session between O'Reilly and MediaLive International. Dale Dougherty, web pioneer and O'Reilly VP, noted that far from having "crashed", the web was more important than ever, with exciting new applications and sites popping up with surprising regularity. What's more, the companies that had survived the collapse seemed to have some things in common. Could it be that the dot-com collapse marked some kind of turning point for the web, such that a call to action such as "Web 2.0" might make sense? We agreed that it did, and so the Web 2.0 Conference was born.
Highlighted by joel
computer. Akamai also treats the network as the platform, and at a deeper level of the stack, building a transparent caching and content delivery network that
Highlighted by joel
The concept of "Web 2.0" began with a conference brainstorming session between O'Reilly and MediaLive International. Dale Dougherty, web pioneer and O'Reilly VP, noted that far from having "crashed", the web was more important than ever, with exciting new applications and sites popping up with surprising regularity. What's more, the companies that had survived the collapse seemed to have some things in common. Could it be that the dot-com collapse marked some kind of turning point for the web, such that a call to action such as "Web 2.0" might make sense? We agreed that it did, and so the Web 2.0 Conference was born.
Highlighted by smbryant
This article is an attempt to clarify just what we mean by Web 2.0.
Highlighted by smbryant
The concept of "Web 2.0" began with a conference brainstorming session between
O'Reilly and MediaLive International. Dale Dougherty, web pioneer and O'Reilly
VP, noted that far from having "crashed", the web was more important than ever,
with exciting new applications and sites popping up with surprising regularity.
What's more, the companies that had survived the collapse seemed to have some
things in common. Could it be that the dot-com collapse marked some kind of
turning point for the web, such that a call to action such as "Web 2.0" might
make sense? We agreed that it did, and so the Web
2.0 Conference was born.
Highlighted by techieme
Highlighted by ycc2106
This article is an attempt to clarify just what we mean by Web 2.0.
In our initial brainstorming, we formulated our sense of Web 2.0 by example:
Highlighted by ycc2106
Collective Intelligence
Highlighted by kayflow
Data is the Next Intel Inside
Highlighted by kayflow
Lightweight Programming Models
Highlighted by kayflow
allow for loosely coupled systems.
Highlighted by kayflow
syndication, not coordination.
Highlighted by kayflow
"hackability" and remixability
Highlighted by kayflow
Innovation in Assembly
Highlighted by kayflow
Rich User Experiences
Highlighted by kayflow
"Ajax isn't a technology. It's really several technologies, each flourishing in its own right, coming together in powerful new ways. Ajax incorporates:
- standards-based presentation using XHTML and CSS;
- dynamic display and interaction using the Document Object Model;
- data interchange and manipulation using XML and XSLT;
- asynchronous data retrieval using XMLHttpRequest;
- and JavaScript binding everything together."
Highlighted by kayflow
The Long Tail
Highlighted by kayflow
Highlighted by kayflow
Users Add Value
Highlighted by kayflow
Network Effects by Default
Highlighted by kayflow
user data as a side-effect of their use of the application.
Highlighted by kayflow
Some Rights Reserved.
Highlighted by kayflow
The Perpetual Beta
Highlighted by kayflow
Cooperate, Don't Control
Highlighted by kayflow
Highlighted by kayflow
What Is Web 2.0
Highlighted by rafafa
1. The Web As Platform
Highlighted by whertha
2. Harnessing Collective Intelligence
The central principle behind the success of the giants born in the Web 1.0 era who have survived to lead the Web 2.0 era appears to be this, that they have embraced the power of the web to harness collective intelligence:
Highlighted by whertha
3. Data is the Next Intel Inside
Every significant internet application to date has been backed by a specialized database: Google's web crawl, Yahoo!'s directory (and web crawl), Amazon's database of products, eBay's database of products and sellers, MapQuest's map databases, Napster's distributed song database.
Highlighted by whertha
5. Lightweight Programming Models
Highlighted by whertha
6. Software Above the Level of a Single Device
Highlighted by whertha
7. Rich User Experiences
Highlighted by whertha
Core Competencies of Web 2.0 Companies
In exploring the seven principles above, we've highlighted some of the principal features of Web 2.0. Each of the examples we've explored demonstrates one or more of those key principles, but may miss others. Let's close, therefore, by summarizing what we believe to be the core competencies of Web 2.0 companies:
- Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability
- Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them
- Trusting users as co-developers
- Harnessing collective intelligence
- Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service
- Software above the level of a single device
- Lightweight user interfaces, development models, AND business models
Highlighted by whertha
Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service
Highlighted by jonathan_lipkin
BitTorrent thus demonstrates a key Web 2.0 principle: the service automatically gets better the more people use it.
While Akamai must add servers to improve service, every BitTorrent
consumer brings his own resources to the party. There's an implicit
"architecture of participation", a built-in ethic of cooperation
Highlighted by jonathan_lipkin
What Is Web 2.0
Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software
Highlighted by wsarka
Web 1.0 Web 2.0
DoubleClick --> Google AdSense
Ofoto --> Flickr
Akamai --> BitTorrent
mp3.com --> Napster
Britannica Online --> Wikipedia
personal websites --> blogging
evite --> upcoming.org and EVDB
domain name speculation --> search engine optimization
page views --> cost per click
screen scraping --> web services
publishing --> participation
content management systems --> wikis
directories (taxonomy) --> tagging ("folksonomy")
stickiness --> syndication
Highlighted by sbmandal
Let's close, therefore, by summarizing what we believe to be the core competencies of Web 2.0 companies:
- Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability
- Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them
- Trusting users as co-developers
- Harnessing collective intelligence
- Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service
- Software above the level of a single device
- Lightweight user interfaces, development models, AND business models
Highlighted by nywcheng
Let's close, therefore, by summarizing what we believe to be the core competencies of Web 2.0 companies:
- Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability
- Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them
- Trusting users as co-developers
- Harnessing collective intelligence
- Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service
- Software above the level of a single device
- Lightweight user interfaces, development models, AND business models
Highlighted by nywcheng
In the year and a half since, the term "Web 2.0" has clearly taken hold, with more than 9.5 million citations in Google. But there's still a huge amount of disagreement about just what Web 2.0 means, with some people decrying it as a meaningless marketing buzzword, and others accepting it as the new conventional wisdom.
This article is an attempt to clarify just what we mean by Web 2.0.
Highlighted by mkoidin
While not all web applications are developed in as extreme a style as Flickr, almost all web applications have a development cycle that is radically unlike anything from the PC or client-server era. It is for this reason that a recent ZDnet editorial concluded that Microsoft won't be able to beat Google: "Microsoft's business model depends on everyone upgrading their computing environment every two to three years. Google's depends on everyone exploring what's new in their computing environment every day."...excellence in one area may be more telling than some small steps in all seven.
Highlighted by dcorking
Web 2.0 design patterns visit link
In his book, A Pattern Language, Christopher Alexander prescribes a format for the concise description of the solution to architectural problems. He writes: "Each pattern describes a problem that occurs over and over again in our environment, and then describes the core of the solution to that problem, in such a way that you can use this solution a million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice."
The Long Tail
Small sites make up the bulk of the internet's content; narrow niches make up the bulk of internet's the possible applications. Therefore: Leverage customer-self service and algorithmic data management to reach out to the entire web, to the edges and not just the center, to the long tail and not just the head.
Data is the Next Intel Inside
Applications are increasingly data-driven. Therefore: For competitive advantage, seek to own a unique, hard-to-recreate source of data.
Users Add Value
The key to competitive advantage in internet applications is the extent to which users add their own data to that which you provide. Therefore: Don't restrict your "architecture of participation" to software development. Involve your users both implicitly and explicitly in adding value to your application.
Network Effects by Default
Only a small percentage of users will go to the trouble of adding value to your application. Therefore: Set inclusive defaults for aggregating user data as a side-effect of their use of the application.
Some Rights Reserved. Intellectual property protection limits re-use and prevents experimentation. Therefore: When benefits come from collective adoption, not private restriction, make sure that barriers to adoption are low. Follow existing standards, and use licenses with as few restrictions as possible. Design for "hackability" and "remixability."
The Perpetual Beta
When devices and programs are connected to the internet, applications are no longer software artifacts, they are
Highlighted by morpheus
The concept of "Web 2.0" began with a conference brainstorming session between O'Reilly and MediaLive International. Dale Dougherty, web pioneer and O'Reilly VP, noted that far from having "crashed", the web was more important than ever, with exciting new applications and sites popping up with surprising regularity. What's more, the companies that had survived the collapse seemed to have some things in common. Could it be that the dot-com collapse marked some kind of turning point for the web, such that a call to action such as "Web 2.0" might make sense? We agreed that it did, and so the Web 2.0 Conference was born.
Highlighted by jahmount
Web 2.0 design patterns visit link
In his book, A Pattern Language, Christopher Alexander prescribes a format for the concise description of the solution to architectural problems. He writes: "Each pattern describes a problem that occurs over and over again in our environment, and then describes the core of the solution to that problem, in such a way that you can use this solution a million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice."
The Long Tail
Small sites make up the bulk of the internet's content; narrow niches make up the bulk of internet's the possible applications. Therefore: Leverage customer-self service and algorithmic data management to reach out to the entire web, to the edges and not just the center, to the long tail and not just the head.
Data is the Next Intel Inside
Applications are increasingly data-driven. Therefore: For competitive advantage, seek to own a unique, hard-to-recreate source of data.
Users Add Value
The key to competitive advantage in internet applications is the extent to which users add their own data to that which you provide. Therefore: Don't restrict your "architecture of participation" to software development. Involve your users both implicitly and explicitly in adding value to your application.
Network Effects by Default
Only a small percentage of users will go to the trouble of adding value to your application. Therefore: Set inclusive defaults for aggregating user data as a side-effect of their use of the application.
Some Rights Reserved. Intellectual property protection limits re-use and prevents experimentation. Therefore: When benefits come from collective adoption, not private restriction, make sure that barriers to adoption are low. Follow existing standards, and use licenses with as few restrictions as possible. Design for "hackability" and "remixability."
The Perpetual Beta
When devices and programs are connected to the internet, applications are no longer software artifacts, they are
Highlighted by morpheus
Web 2.0 design patterns visit link
In his book, A Pattern Language, Christopher Alexander prescribes a format for the concise description of the solution to architectural problems. He writes: "Each pattern describes a problem that occurs over and over again in our environment, and then describes the core of the solution to that problem, in such a way that you can use this solution a million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice."
The Long Tail
Small sites make up the bulk of the internet's content; narrow niches make up the bulk of internet's the possible applications. Therefore: Leverage customer-self service and algorithmic data management to reach out to the entire web, to the edges and not just the center, to the long tail and not just the head.
Data is the Next Intel Inside
Applications are increasingly data-driven. Therefore: For competitive advantage, seek to own a unique, hard-to-recreate source of data.
Users Add Value
The key to competitive advantage in internet applications is the extent to which users add their own data to that which you provide. Therefore: Don't restrict your "architecture of participation" to software development. Involve your users both implicitly and explicitly in adding value to your application.
Network Effects by Default
Only a small percentage of users will go to the trouble of adding value to your application. Therefore: Set inclusive defaults for aggregating user data as a side-effect of their use of the application.
Some Rights Reserved. Intellectual property protection limits re-use and prevents experimentation. Therefore: When benefits come from collective adoption, not private restriction, make sure that barriers to adoption are low. Follow existing standards, and use licenses with as few restrictions as possible. Design for "hackability" and "remixability."
The Perpetual Beta
When devices and programs are connected to the internet, applications are no longer software artifacts, they are
Highlighted by morpheus
What Is Web 2.0
Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software
by Tim O'Reilly
09/30/2005
Highlighted by rogerboeken
Web 2.0 design patterns visit link
In his book, A Pattern Language, Christopher Alexander prescribes a format for the concise description of the solution to architectural problems. He writes: "Each pattern describes a problem that occurs over and over again in our environment, and then describes the core of the solution to that problem, in such a way that you can use this solution a million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice."
The Long Tail
Small sites make up the bulk of the internet's content; narrow niches make up the bulk of internet's the possible applications. Therefore: Leverage customer-self service and algorithmic data management to reach out to the entire web, to the edges and not just the center, to the long tail and not just the head.
Data is the Next Intel Inside
Applications are increasingly data-driven. Therefore: For competitive advantage, seek to own a unique, hard-to-recreate source of data.
Users Add Value
The key to competitive advantage in internet applications is the extent to which users add their own data to that which you provide. Therefore: Don't restrict your "architecture of participation" to software development. Involve your users both implicitly and explicitly in adding value to your application.
Network Effects by Default
Only a small percentage of users will go to the trouble of adding value to your application. Therefore: Set inclusive defaults for aggregating user data as a side-effect of their use of the application.
Some Rights Reserved. Intellectual property protection limits re-use and prevents experimentation. Therefore: When benefits come from collective adoption, not private restriction, make sure that barriers to adoption are low. Follow existing standards, and use licenses with as few restrictions as possible. Design for "hackability" and "remixability."
The Perpetual Beta
When devices and programs are connected to the internet, applications are no longer software artifacts, they are
Highlighted by morpheus
For example, at the first Web 2.0 conference, in October 2004, John Battelle and I listed a preliminary set of principles in our opening talk. The first of those principles was "The web as platform." Yet that was also a rallying cry of Web 1.0 darling Netscape, which went down in flames after a heated battle with Microsoft. What's more, two of our initial Web 1.0 exemplars, DoubleClick and Akamai, were both pioneers in treating the web as a platform. People don't often think of it as "web services", but in fact, ad serving was the first widely deployed web service, and the first widely deployed "mashup" (to use another term that has gained currency of late). Every banner ad is served as a seamless cooperation between two websites, delivering an integrated page to a reader on yet another computer. Akamai also treats the network as the platform, and at a deeper level of the stack, building a transparent caching and content delivery network that eases bandwidth congestion.
Nonetheless, these pioneers provided useful contrasts because later entrants have taken their solution to the same problem even further, understanding something deeper about the nature of the new platform. Both DoubleClick and Akamai were Web 2.0 pioneers, yet we can also see how it's possible to realize more of the possibilities by embracing additional Web 2.0 design patterns.
Highlighted by ironick
What Is Web 2.0
Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software
by Tim O'Reilly
09/30/2005
The bursting of the dot-com bubble in the fall of 2001 marked a turning point for the web. Many people concluded that the web was overhyped, when in fact bubbles and consequent shakeouts appear to be a common feature of all technological revolutions. Shakeouts typically mark the point at which an ascendant technology is ready to take its place at center stage. The pretenders are given the bum's rush, the real success stories show their strength, and there begins to be an understanding of what separates one from the other.
Highlighted by mjnorris
Web 1.0 vs. 2.0 - what's in and what's out
"In fact, the value of the software is proportional to the scale and dynamism of the data it helps to manage.
The Web 2.0 lesson: leverage customer-self service and algorithmic data management to reach out to the entire web, to the edges and not just the center, to the long tail and not just the head.
The lesson: Network effects from user contributions are the key to market dominance in the Web 2.0 era."
Own the data not the app -- "The race is on to own certain classes of core data: location, identity, calendaring of public events, product identifiers and namespaces. "
Software as service, not releases
"Support lightweight programming models that allow for loosely coupled systems.
Think syndication, not coordination.
Design for "hackability" and remixability.
"
" Software Above the Level of a Single Device"
"rich user experiences"
What characteristics does Web 2.0 company * Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability
* Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them
* Trusting users as co-developers
* Harnessing collective intelligence
* Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service
* Software above the level of a single device
* Lightweight user interfaces, development models, AND business
Highlighted by fichter
Web 1.0 vs. 2.0 - what's in and what's out
"In fact, the value of the software is proportional to the scale and dynamism of the data it helps to manage.
The Web 2.0 lesson: leverage customer-self service and algorithmic data management to reach out to the entire web, to the edges and not just the center, to the long tail and not just the head.
The lesson: Network effects from user contributions are the key to market dominance in the Web 2.0 era."
Own the data not the app -- "The race is on to own certain classes of core data: location, identity, calendaring of public events, product identifiers and namespaces. "
Software as service, not releases
"Support lightweight programming models that allow for loosely coupled systems.
Think syndication, not coordination.
Design for "hackability" and remixability.
"
" Software Above the Level of a Single Device"
"rich user experiences"
What characteristics does Web 2.0 company * Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability
* Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them
* Trusting users as co-developers
* Harnessing collective intelligence
* Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service
* Software above the level of a single device
* Lightweight user interfaces, development models, AND business
Highlighted by fichter
Web 1.0 vs. 2.0 - what's in and what's out
"In fact, the value of the software is proportional to the scale and dynamism of the data it helps to manage.
The Web 2.0 lesson: leverage customer-self service and algorithmic data management to reach out to the entire web, to the edges and not just the center, to the long tail and not just the head.
The lesson: Network effects from user contributions are the key to market dominance in the Web 2.0 era."
Own the data not the app -- "The race is on to own certain classes of core data: location, identity, calendaring of public events, product identifiers and namespaces. "
Software as service, not releases
"Support lightweight programming models that allow for loosely coupled systems.
Think syndication, not coordination.
Design for "hackability" and remixability.
"
" Software Above the Level of a Single Device"
"rich user experiences"
What characteristics does Web 2.0 company * Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability
* Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them
* Trusting users as co-developers
* Harnessing collective intelligence
* Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service
* Software above the level of a single device
* Lightweight user interfaces, development models, AND business
Highlighted by fichter
Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software
by Tim O'Reilly
09/30/2005
The bursting of the dot-com bubble in the fall of 2001 marked a turning point for the web. Many people concluded that the web was overhyped, when in fact bubbles and consequent shakeouts appear to be a common feature of all technological revolutions. Shakeouts typically mark the point at which an ascendant technology is ready to take its place at center stage. The pretenders are given the bum's rush, the real success stories show their strength, and there begins to be an understanding of what separates one from the other.
The concept of "Web 2.0" began with a conference brainstorming session between O'Reilly and MediaLive International. Dale Dougherty, web pioneer and O'Reilly VP, noted that far from having "crashed", the web was more important than ever, with exciting new applications and sites popping up with surprising regularity. What's more, the companies that had survived the collapse seemed to have some things in common. Could it be that the dot-com collapse marked some kind of turning point for the web, such that a call to action such as "Web 2.0" might make sense? We agreed that it did, and so the Web 2.0 Conference was born.
Highlighted by rudyleon
failure to understand the importance of owning an application's core data will eventually undercut its competitive position.
Highlighted by microman
In the year and a half since, the term "Web 2.0" has clearly taken hold, with more than 9.5 million citations in Google. But there's still a huge amount of disagreement about just what Web 2.0 means, with some people decrying it as a meaningless marketing buzzword, and others accepting it as the new conventional wisdom.
This article is an attempt to clarify just what we mean by Web 2.0.
Highlighted by sborowski
The concept of "Web 2.0" began with a conference brainstorming session between O'Reilly and MediaLive International. Dale Dougherty, web pioneer and O'Reilly VP, noted that far from having "crashed", the web was more important than ever, with exciting new applications and sites popping up with surprising regularity. What's more, the companies that had survived the collapse seemed to have some things in common. Could it be that the dot-com collapse marked some kind of turning point for the web, such that a call to action such as "Web 2.0" might make sense? We agreed that it did, and so the Web 2.0 Conference was born.
Highlighted by davidjennings
The bursting of the dot-com bubble in the fall of 2001 marked a turning point for the web. Many people concluded that the web was overhyped, when in fact bubbles and consequent shakeouts appear to be a common feature of all technological revolutions. Shakeouts typically mark the point at which an ascendant technology is ready to take its place at center stage. The pretenders are given the bum's rush, the real success stories show their strength, and there begins to be an understanding of what separates one from the other.
Highlighted by tuffnellpark
In the year and a half since, the term "Web 2.0" has clearly taken hold, with more than 9.5 million citations in Google. But there's still a huge amount of disagreement about just what Web 2.0 means, with some people decrying it as a meaningless marketing buzzword, and others accepting it as the new conventional wisdom.
Highlighted by vdabeele
What Is Web 2.0
Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software
by Tim O'Reilly
09/30/2005
The bursting of the dot-com bubble in the fall of 2001 marked a turning point for the web. Many people concluded that the web was overhyped, when in fact bubbles and consequent shakeouts appear to be a common feature of all technological revolutions. Shakeouts typically mark the point at which an ascendant technology is ready to take its place at center stage. The pretenders are given the bum's rush, the real success stories show their strength, and there begins to be an understanding of what separates one from the other.
Highlighted by cristambor
What Is Web 2.0
Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software
Highlighted by ursfrei
What Is Web 2.0
Design Patterns and Business Models
for the Next Generation of Software
Highlighted by boniel
What Is Web 2.0
Highlighted by endstern
In our initial brainstorming, we formulated our sense of Web 2.0 by example:
| Web 1.0 | Web 2.0 | |
|---|---|---|
| DoubleClick | --> | Google AdSense |
| Ofoto | --> | Flickr |
| Akamai | --> | BitTorrent |
| mp3.com | --> | Napster |
| Britannica Online | --> | Wikipedia |
| personal websites | --> | blogging |
| evite | --> | upcoming.org and EVDB |
| domain name speculation | --> | search engine optimization |
| page views | --> | cost per click |
| screen scraping | --> | web services |
| publishing | --> | participation |
| content management systems | --> | wikis |
| directories (taxonomy) | --> | tagging ("folksonomy") |
| stickiness | --> | syndication |
Highlighted by aarriaga
on 2009-03-08 by aarriaga
Team 2, how great is this comparison! also, just wanted to show you 2 cool features of social bookmarking - highlighting text and sticky notes!! Anne
Highlighted by lister
The Web As Platform
Highlighted by yudonghai
Nor does its flagship search service even host the content that it enables users to find.
Highlighted by osserpse
DoubleClick's offerings require a formal sales contract, limiting their market to the few thousand largest websites.
Highlighted by osserpse
to the edges and not just the center, to the long tail and not just the head.
Highlighted by osserpse
BitTorrent thus demonstrates a key Web 2.0 principle: the service automatically gets better the more people use it.
Highlighted by osserpse
critical mass of buyers and sellers, which makes any new entrant offering similar services significantly less attractive.
Highlighted by madsgorm
While Akamai must add servers to improve service, every BitTorrent consumer brings his own resources to the party.
Highlighted by osserpse
But Amazon has made a science of user engagement.
Highlighted by osserpse
the greatest internet success stories don't advertise their products
Highlighted by osserpse
viral marketing
Highlighted by osserpse
You can almost make the case that if a site or product relies on advertising to get the word out, it isn't Web 2.0.
Highlighted by osserpse
Network effects from user contributions are the key to market dominance in the Web 2.0 era.
Highlighted by osserpse
For the first time it became relatively easy to gesture directly at a highly specific post on someone else's site and talk about it. Discussion emerged. Chat emerged
Highlighted by osserpse
If an essential part of Web 2.0 is harnessing collective intelligence, turning
the web into a kind of global brain, the blogosphere is the equivalent of
constant mental chatter in the forebrain, the voice we hear in all of our heads.
It may not reflect the deep structure of the brain, which is often unconscious,
but is instead the equivalent of
Highlighted by mmarlatt
While mainstream media may see individual blogs as competitors, what is really unnerving is that the competition is with the blogosphere as a whole. This is not just a competition between sites, but a competition between business models.
Highlighted by osserpse
Users must be treated as co-developers,
Highlighted by madsgorm
the company that first reaches critical mass
Highlighted by madsgorm
Public Comment
on 2006-07-26 by springnet
on 2006-07-27 by davemorehouse
on 2006-08-03 by edwardhenry
on 2006-09-02 by rulemanes
on 2006-09-03 by adubber
on 2007-01-04 by edventures
on 2009-03-08 by aarriaga