All projects: Gel, Jobs, Gootodo, Games, Uncle Mark, Goovite, Blog, Bit Literacy
What Web 2.0 should really be about: the users
Oct 30, 2007
In an airport the other day I spotted Entrepreneur magazine's current cover story: "Get Rich 2.0" was the headline, in enormous type. Just under that, "The Fast, Cheap & Easy Way To Make Money Online."
I couldn't help but remember that I had seen similar headlines in late 1999 and early 2000, just weeks before the dotcom crash.
Now, I'm no market predictor (no one is, really), but I can at least observe that the phrase "2.0" is stretching the limits of its usefulness. Now that it's been reduced to promising cheap "get rich quick" schemes, it raises the question...
What happened to Web 2.0? (And what was it supposed to be, anyway?)
"Web 2.0" originally referred to a conference cofounded by publisher Tim O'Reilly, to celebrate the rebirth of online business after the dotcom crash - but it soon gained currency as a buzzword in the press, blogs, and (yes) conferences. Depending on the context, it might refer to...
• websites that act more like software (like Gmail)
• user-generated content (like Wikipedia and YouTube)
• new ways of sharing data (like Flickr and del.icio.us)
...but as the press covered more and more stories of overnight millionaires, "Web 2.0" began to take on the meaning alluded to by the Entrepreneur magazine cover story above: easy money.
The thing is, there really is something to the Web 2.0 trend; it's just not as big as the hype promises. Stripping away the nonsense, I'd state Web 2.0 as such:
• users do appreciate software-like aspects of websites, in some cases
• users do want to learn from other users' contributions, in some cases (i.e. reviews on Amazon and TripAdvisor, entries on Wikipedia)
• users do want to share their data with other users, in some cases (i.e. mostly advanced users posting photos on Flickr or bookmarks on del.icio.us)
• users do want to network with other users, in some cases (i.e. businesspeople on LinkedIn, music fans on MySpace, and a mix of people on Facebook)
The key phrase is "in some cases," and this is what I believe is so hard for techno-utopians - to accept that there are limitations to what users actually want from technology.
Take the idea of sharing. Do you really want to turn EVERY aspect of your life into data to share with thousands or millions of people you've never met? For example, there are several financial sites now that allow users to share their net worth (anonymously or not) with all the other users on the service. Other companies promise soon to analyze your DNA and allow you to share it publicly with the world.
All of these will be helpful to some users; I'm only arguing that there's a line somewhere beyond which it's not helpful to share. In other words, sharing in itself - one of the hallmarks of Web 2.0 - isn't an ultimate good. Rather, sharing is good as long as it's good for the user; user-generated content is good as long as it's good for the user; and so on.
And this is where I break with the boosters of Web 2.0. They say that sharing, user-generated content, and tactics like AJAX and tags will usher in a new online utopia. I say that the game hasn't changed since the Internet started: in every context, a tool must either serve the user or be abandoned. The user is what's important, not the technology.
It's worth keeping an eye out for the rare counterpoint to Web 2.0 hysteria. I saw two recently: first, the Economist wrote on October 18 (article, reg. required) that "there's less to Facebook and other social networks than meets the eye"... since "social networks lose value once they go beyond a certain size."
The second piece, a blog post called Flickr Huh?, in which a thirtysomething blogger admits that he doesn't understand why photo-sharing services like Flickr are so popular:
More puzzling to me is the fact that there are evidently tons of people who see fit to invite strangers to comment on their photos. (I don't want any strangers looking at my photos at all. That's why I prefer to email my digi-pix around.)
These are just counterpoints - I enjoy using both Facebook and Flickr - but I think it's useful to keep an open eye to people who question the usefulness (that is, to USERS) of these tools, rather than promoting them just because they're part of a trend, or heaven forbid, for the dumbest reason in the world to claim to like a tool, which is that someone got rich by selling the company or taking it public. (Unless you were that someone. Then of course you like it.)
Finally, one clip not from today's buzzing media environment. This is a good counterpoint to the Entrepreneur magazine article: a clip from Cecil Roberts' memoir "The Bright Twenties" (taken from this page - I'm assuming it's an accurate quote):
The stock market hysteria reached its apex in 1929... Stocks soared dizzily. I found it hard not to be engulfed... Everyone said, "Hang on - it's a rising market". On my last day in New York I went down to the barber. As he removed the sheet he said softly, "Buy Standard Gas. I've doubled. It's good for another double." As I walked upstairs, I reflected that if the hysteria had reached the barber-level, something must soon happen.
Time to think clearly.
See also:
• The Web 2.0 question - and Grandparents.com
• What Is Web 2.0, by Tim O'Reilly himself
(Thanks to Zimran for the 2blowhards link)
Mark, thanks for a useful heads-up. Like any idea that hits the mainstream media, "Web 2.0" can be oversimplified and exaggerated. But, so can the counter-hype.
It is certainly true that the Internet has not automatically led to a utopia of distributed power. And whatever "Web 2.0" is, it's certainly not primarily about "easy money."
Nevertheless, I'm sure you would agree that *well designed* participatory technology is significantly novel and beneficial. The fundamental point here is that there is a unique power to "crowd sourcing" that goes beyond the power of strictly hierarchical organizational structures. (If you haven't read Don Tapscott's book "Wikinomics" check it out. It's a much more structural analysis of what's going on in these new dynamics. It's a little hype-y in tone itself, but there's a lot there to consider seriously.)
We are only just beginning to explore the potential of these distributed participation models, and some of the early successes may be dominating the perceptions of observers, but there is a wide-open vista in front of us waiting to be understood in more depth.
You're absolutely correct to point out that not all experiments in this domain will be successful simply because they involve some sort of participatory dynamic. And frankly, even successful instances will have to continually evolve and fine-tune themselves over time. Also, there remain many unresolved policy issues arising from this technology such as personal privacy, data security, network neutrality, etc.
But as we roll back from the hype, let us take care not to reflexively careen into the opposite extreme. The sweet spot is in the middle.
I haven't ever read Entrepreneur magazine, but until now I'd thought it was a serious publication. It's hard to believe they'd actually publish a story under a headline including the phrase "fast, cheap and easy" without including the caveat "pick any two." Noticeably, the offerings didn't include "high quality" or "good experience."
Hi Mark!
I agree, especially with your reference to the stock market crash of 1929.
This is slightly off the topic of Web 2.0, but I have some serious reservations about the stock market. Call it a gut instinct or whatever you will, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the markets are gonna nose-dive big time sometime soon. I am very wary of putting any money into the market right; I'd rather it be sitting in a bank account, where at least it's earning a little interest, than be tied up in stocks, where it's subject to lose value.
Maybe I paid too much attention in my economics classes in college, but what goes up must eventually come down.
Mark, great observation. Beware of deals. They have bee around since the Ark.
Phil Terry Sr
Mark: You XC$$#%$##$^ old cynic Luddite, axe grinder. Web 2.0 is the promise land celebrating all new Web developments and everything wonderful up until Web 3.0 arrives.
Actually I share your skepticism of most of the new business plans with social networks suddenly attached. I am intrigued with Facebook's attempt to be everyone's start page / dashboard embedding email and widgets for everything imaginable.
I don't believe we are in a bubble. Just a bit froothy. This is what the world looks like when everyone (including both my parents) is online. Of course it is scary. Unimaginable just a few years ago but true. Perhaps because of all the "Good user Experience" you have been evangelizing. But its too late to turn back.
Arthur
[Standing Ovation] BRAVO!
When huge, slow-moving corporations start throwing big money at these companies, the peak has been reached. The Facebook people should have sold it all to Microsoft at the valuation implied by MSFT's recent investment; I have my doubts it will ever be worth more.
Allan
Nice post, Mark. I'm paying extra attention to counterpoints/outliers these days, as part of a broader effort to read - and selectively participate in - a diverse range of media. Trying to round out the story... web 2.0 makes that possible, for one.
Congrats on the +book reviews. I bought the book and will dig in soon.
Mashups are my least favorite inventions, at least until they're contextualized in a functioning application.
Celebrating a mashup -- and even more, building a company around it -- is like celebrating a U-joint or a stereo headset (without the full stereo panoply).
I'm incapable of keeping up with the current mashup fire hose; those mashups that capture my attention impose unreasonable learning curves, taking me away from productive labor.
One could spend one's whole time online experimenting with new mashups and accomplish nothing else, which is why, perhaps, speculative money loves them. For the moment, they're all promise and no downside for lack of an actual audience's experience.