What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
48 Comments
- Dradis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I remember a number of years ago my friend told me about this new MP3 player called an, "iPod". I'd never heard of it, and I thought it was way overpriced, but some time after that I realized that carrying around a case full of CDs was useless, and I bought my first (and current) iPod (a 3rd Gen one).
My point is that all technologies, and new things in general, are always snatched up by those who concern themselves with a particular area. Web-based (or network) applications have several interesting possibilities; just because they're not immediately snatched up by 90% of the population does not mean they are not a success and should not be developed. - paulca, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The thing about Web2.0 is that it all comes down to the same things that Web1.0 did : people & the user experience. The latest trend of sites make it easy for users to do certain things ( upload videos, manage projects etc ). They back this up with decent customer support and professional customer relations.
Think back to 1996 - 1999 : Amazon made it easy to buy anything online, backed up by great customer support and a site that was easy to use, and when it wasn't, they responded to their customers.
eBay made it easy to sell things online, backed up by a fanatical community and a site that grew and developed according to user demands.
The concepts are still the same. The recipes for success are still the same. It's only the technology that is changing. The main principle still applies though : as long as the user experience is a positive one and as long as the site turns a profit at the end of the day, it'll be a survivor. - mstar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7This whole Web2.0 - all it means is nicer design and one or two levels of functionality done differently then traditional means. Its useful, but its not "life altering" as far as I'm concerned.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Inaccurate. While interesting, it's based on Alexa's ranking system which only takes into account users that installed the Alexa toolbar (obviously), and thus eliminates more tech-savvy users. I trust that anybody who has any idea about spyware will avoid it. No digg.
- JimmyShelter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Good point, but the problem is that there aren't much reliable sources which can be used to compared the number of visitors.
Anyone know a better source than Alexa? - vvaduva, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11"So how is Web 2.0 doing generally? If you use Alexa to chart out some of these startups, you often see prettty rocky mountains. Typically, there's an initial spike around the buzz of a release of some sort (what I like to call the "Honeymoon" or "Techcrunch" phase), and then things settle down."
Agh...when will these people learn that Alexa stats and graphs are crap and are nearly useless? The whole article is premised on Alexa graphs...not good at all. - mrmontrose, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Although the Alexia thing is rather true about the inaccuracy, I think there is something to say about the staying power of a lot of these web 2.0 companies. I just don't think the average user won't use a lot of the services, save for a few(Digg, Pandora, maybe 30 boxes). I believe with portable computing becoming cheaper, why would you need a personalized home page? Or a word processor on line? Most non tech people I know have no idea these things exist, they know nothing about pod-casts, nothing about RSS, nothing about AJAX. They know how to check there email, search google, and go on myspace/facebook. Actually I am in college and all the people I know use Webshots over Flickr, My point is this is just creating a bubble that is going to pop again.
- joel2600, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4the most important article that always needs linked to when discussing web 2.0:
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
Now that you know what web 2.0 means, continue discussion - rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5..And it means domain names that sound as if they were created by a 1-year-old babbling kid, such as "woogie" and "stoof".
I am getting tired of these braindead names. - Reddog_x2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Maybe it would be more appropriate to call it Web 1.2 ? As I see it, most of the technologies being hyped (RSS, podcasts, AJAX, etc) are what I call cupholder technologies. They're not huge steps forward. But, they're nice. They make things a bit easier and more convient.
- loyalj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3i think that the point of all this web 2.0 chatter is that it's still a fairly new toy in the developers toolbox. People are still learning, experimenting etc. the early 2.0 sites are mostly 'moments of inspiration' kind of things.
will they all survive... no. will the ideas and experiments carried out by these sites survive... most definitely. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Nice read dude..very thorough
- mrmontrose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I understand you point, but there are a few things that do work. I think it is important to remember most of these Web 2.0 apps can't wait 2-3 years to become popular (if they ever do.)
- cadavreexquis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Never let consultants tell you what the web is all about.
- lane.montgomery, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think the biggest benefactors of the Web 2.0 craze are the Googles and Yahoos. They pretty much can take a chunk of their R&D budget and use it in acquisitions because so many people are innovating based on a single idea in the market. Sure the idea might make them some money, but it is much more valuable to a company that can integrate it with a wealth of other offerings.
I'm watching Yahoo! closely to see how they handle integration. - drw2583, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3“He who sees the truth, let him proclaim it, without asking who is for it or who is against it.”
Just because you don't see a use for something does not mean that 250 million other internet users don't either.
Example - I don't see a use for World of Warcraft - it just gives nerds a medium to play out fantasies where they don't get picked on daily; however, 6 million people disagree with me. - Kitsune818, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"They back this up with decent customer support and professional customer relations."
Who does this? - btitus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"The bursting of the dot-com bubble in the fall of 2001..." hope that's a typo, because the bubble burst in 2000 and by Nov 2000 it was pretty much over.
- NineTailedFox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2rodrigo, perhaps the idea is to avoid Apple vs. Apple scenarios by picking a name so pathetic that everyone else rejected it. Perhaps they think that Google's success is down to the double vowel. Perhaps there's an online Web 2.0 name generator laden with pointless AJAX which they all use and which I'm neither cool nor sad enough to know about.
In any case, it's true that most people don't know their RSS from their elbow. Even among the heavier internet users I know in "real life", few have progressed from Internet Explorer, and its still overwhelming market share suggests that this is not unrepresentative. It's easy, particularly when dwelling partly within online communities like this one, to overestimate the extent to which the developments we take for granted have really taken hold beyond a professional/enthusiast audience.
Second half not really aimed at rodrigo, in case there was any confusion about that... - jonaizen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"People on the street are not using Gmail. They're using Hotmail."
That's just untrue. Almost everyone I know, from grandmothers to young children are all using Gmail, and I'm not the one who invited them ;) - sbritner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It doesn't matter whether we call it Web2.0, 1.0 or "Holy crap that's Cool!"... it comes down to what is the site or service and what's in it for me (WIIFM).
And if the site does a good enough job attracting members and traffic then someone will find a way to turn it into a financial windfall - and pay accordingly.
It's all relative. $580 million for MySpace is not "too much" if you consider it a tax write off, a tax shelter and just one more way to make/hide/protect money.
It is what it is.
I just wish more people would spend time asking their brain questions to improve the quality of life after they make enough to get themselves out of the rat race.
We have 10,000 times more power sitting on our desks than was in the computer that took astronauts to the moon more than 30 years ago... and what have we done with it? Solitaire. - kenwestin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sorry using Alexa as a valid metric for the case of the article throws red flags for me. Alexa is not even close to accurate. No digg
- sagedude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Just wait until the google share price drops and then this 2.0 bubble will pop. Wasn't the results of the microsoft antitrust case the main instigator for the first dot com bubble pop? Not that theres another bubble here yet...but one does seem to be forming.
- howie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You are kind of missing the point, I think. While Alexa can't give you exact traffic numbers, what it does do is to provide you with a way to measure sites against each other, and monitor trends.
Even if you don't know the actual number of people, you can use the Alexa stats to, say, compare two sites to see which one is bigger. You still don't know the actual number of visitors, but you can still make a comparison.
In this case, Alexa is used to monitor trends on certain sites. You still don't know the actual number of people visiting the site, but you do know when it gets more visitors compared to before, and how traffic develops over time. - Kitsune818, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2No, Web 2.0 is all about applying new labels to old ideas to get the marketing guys excited, and get braindead rich idiots to throw VC at you like they did in the last bubble.
"Web 2.0" is nothing more than name used as diversion from the fact that it didn't work out last time, either.
IIRC, I could embed objects in Win 3.1. - wetelectric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ha ha writing an article about something that doesn't exist ('web 2.0').
Made up phrase by some 40 year I.T guys who missed out on the dot com boom and are pissed.
Anyone using the phrase without quote or without being embarrassed....er.... uses windows ME and windows firewall....and loves it. - napkinback, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This article has more self-referencing than an infinite loop. You also have to admit that Tim sort of has a vested interest in everyone buying into the marketing of "Web 2.0"; he does have a conference to which he needs to sell tickets and books that need readers. Maybe I'm too cynical...
The fact is, development on the Web is like development on the desktop: iterative. Socially-aware websites and solid design principals are not new, they just finally hit a tipping point. Knowing your business and building accordingly isn't some revelation, it finally started to mean something again once the bubble burst.
And what's with that list on Page 1 of the O'Reilly article pairing "Web 1.0" companies to their new counterparts in the new, exciting, and shiny "Web 2.0". Napster is the new mp3.com? Please. We may measure in cost per clicks, but it's just as borked as page views (click fraud anyone?).
Web 2.0 _is_ marketing; always has been, always will be. We're all on a site that is the next increment in a continuous spectrum of development. These "Web 2.0" evangelists treat the term like some web development nerd nailed a USB drive with his theses to the door of Tim Berners-Lee's front door, signaling the beginning of the Next Big Thing. There was no event that started a new Web, happy though Mr. O'Reilly is to claim otherwise. - rekka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"IIRC, I could embed objects in Win 3.1."
yes, but the point is that everyones doing it online now with little technical knowledge. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1equusdc that's a really good idea:
http://www.myturd.com
Can you believe it has squatters!!! - lukes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yes I agree that most people's issues with Web 2.0 stem from the fact that the name implies that something radical has changed. It's just a name, but it seems to be a major stumbling block to many people in accepting that Web 2.0 is a movement in web design and development, similar to how art has movements. We have a group of people with shared aethetics, philosophies and technologies working in a similar terrain, something that most people can recognise is a movement when these things happen art. Web 1.2 would be that bit more modest a name, and would probably have avoided the criticism Web 2.0 has received.
- Precision, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You don't convert people and their emails... It never works. Plus the new hotmail is also nice...
- kazooz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He starts by saying MySpace is so un-Web 2.0. Isn't pulling YouTube video into your MySpace page a Web 2 thing? Isn't Web 2.0 all about portable information, often user generated?
- Quarks, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3No, the point of Web2.0 is to sound like you made something special, more advanced, when in reality it's nothing new. Web2.0 is there purely to (over)hype your product.
It's not something physical, not software, not a framework it's an abstract concept.
Sure there are some nice new sites out there, but it's not drastically new (certainly not a radical upgrade).
The web is not a singular application, it is a fluid interface. A means of information distribution, of functionality, of user-interoperability. It does not constrain to any idea of what an application is, because it is the combination of individual applications that make it so fluid. New coding techniques are constantly created, new hacks and workarounds for non-standards-compliant browsers. New ways of putting together existing code are being thought of and put into use every day somewhere on the millions of web pages the Internet is home to. - CaughtThinking, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So your personal experience translates to millions, gotcha.
I remember seeing a video somewhere that quoted one of the Flickr founders
"What's the most popular feature of Flickr you see in your users, with tagging, clustering etc"
"The ability to make a gallery private"
That sounds pretty 1.0 to me.
Apparently the real world doesn't care too much for web mashups and ajax, they care about what they will care about. - dime, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3hmm.. stoogie has a nice ring to it though...
- kazolar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0maybe this guy should ask google to provide stats -- a lot more people have the google toolbar than the alexa spyware garbage.
- cadavreexquis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I'm with Zeldman, screw Web 2.0, I'm all about Web 3.0 - whatever that is.
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/web3point0 - appleswitch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2rodrigo :/ that sounds like a baby name perfect for Web 2.0! :D
- cathode, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Web 2.0 is crap, it's a meaningless buzzword. Just like the buzzwords we has 7 years ago.
- maldrax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Just wait till web 2.0 hits the enterprise. Frameworks like Icefaces http://icesoft.com/products/icefaces.html (Java), and Atlas http://atlas.asp.net/Default.aspx?tabid=47 (.Net) are coming, and a whole lotta business apps will use them.
- artofwar420, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It just proves once again that MYSPACE is worse than injecting heroin into your jugular.
- marquee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I agree with everyone here about all the hype. I'm completely anti web 2.0!
- miaow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0the spike for writely was everyone visiting after google bought it. the downtrend afterwards was the google 'beta' buyout effect
- yllabianbitpipe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0While I use gmail, I have met great resistance when trying to convert the "older" relatives I know. Someone sent a chain email around a couple of months ago saying it was a security risk.
- tuxidomasx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3i hear a lot of people talking about Web 2.0 its just another buzzword that is creating another bubble due to over-hyping, etc.
that may be true, but if there is another bubble, isnt that a good thing? its a chance to try to get in, take a chance, and possibly make some quick money. nothin wrong with that. even though i think web 2.0 is nothing but fluff, i still wanna see what happens when it becomes even more mainstream. and even if we are at the start of another bubble, there still might be plenty of time to make some money before it breaks.
hell, just make a website that has rounded corners, gradient backgrounds & buttons, and some outlying social/community element. Call it a Web 2.0 site. and make profit from ads.
best case scenario: you get acquired by a larger company and become quite wealthy
worst case scenario: your site(that took you a whopping 2 weeks to make in your spare time) flops and you make $0.
in any case, this is a chance to ride the hype and make a quick buck. - equusdc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Well, at least he put in a disclaimer: "Of course, all this comparative analysis is anecdotal and isn't meant to prove anything concrete."
Yeah, no kidding. Pointless waste of self-promoting time. I'm getting so tired of bloggers. Honestly, the lot of them might as well post a daily analysis of their turds. - gregtallent, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Seems that the new Office is the same old thing - they're just calling the toolbar 'ribbon', instead. I think there's a lot of life in the Web2.0 idea of social networking and collaboration. www.1000greatthings.com
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2And yet again, a few sheep of the Digg flock decide to bury my post for no reason. Care to elaborate, dear "annonymous cowards"?
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is