“Unamusing” Web 2.0
January 11 (Thursday) 2007
Kou Yukawa
Senior Associate
Summary
- The concept of the so-called “Web 2.0” is the hottest topic concept in the ICT industry since 2004. However, it seems that misunderstandings are also rapidly increasing. As a result, excessive expectation and concern are emerging and there are worries of the beginning of a mini-bubble.
- The origins of these misunderstandings can be traced to an article by Tim O’Reilly entitled, “What is Web 2.0”. A number of unorganized arguments are presented in this article, and they have generated a multitude of slightly differing interpretations.
- To avoid setting back the entire internet business from excessive expectation and anxiety resulting from the meanderings of one concept, as in the Internet bubble years, it is important to rethink the meaning of “Web 2.0”.
Three “Unamusing” Examples
As the word “Web 2.0” rapidly spreads, so does a sense that misunderstandings related to this concept are also increasing. I would like to introduce three personal examples that illustrate this. The first example is from a committee for a certain public project that I am participating in. “Let’s make this project self-propagating by Web 2.0”: this opinion was introduced at the committee, and things became quite animated. The project was to establish a website with a certain goal, and “self-propagating” apparently referred to the desire to automatically increase the use of the website by enterprises. Unfortunately I was not in attendance at this particular meeting, and although I have reread the meeting minutes several times and have even inquired at the main office, the connection between “self-propagating” and “Web 2.0” on this site still remains unclear.
The second example was introduced to me by a friend, and it concerns a venture enterprise in which his company (where he is an executive) has an interest. In the “Outline of Services” and “Company Profile” portion of this system integrator’s website, the very attractive words, “Cutting-edge Technology such as Web 2.0” dance out from the screen. However, with only a look through the site it is difficult to comprehend exactly what technology or services this enterprise considers to be Web 2.0.
The third example comes from the Q&A time of a study session in which I had the opportunity to speak about Web 2.0. A person in attendance from a major IT corporation remarked, “Looking at the way systems and software have been developed in the past, I can’t help but wonder what will happen to our business once the Web 2.0 era arrives”. It is a fact that in the world of Web 2.0 software is a service (SaaS), not an object. Yet, isn’t it true that, in comparison with open source software development methods, a variety of problems have been identified concerning the methods of software and system development in major IT enterprises?
These three examples are not to say that the people involved were mistaken. The point is how attractive the keyword “Web 2.0” has become.
The members participating in the discussion in the first example are all experts, and among them are a venture capitalist who I personally respect and trust as well as the president of a venture enterprise who, as a businessman, has an outstanding academic history and is rich in experience. My friend’s company in the second example is a famous software enterprise with an established reputation for technological strength. The study session in the third example was open only to those employed in the IT sector. Yet, even these kinds of people only have a vague understanding of the meaning and impact of Web 2.0, or carry excessive expectations or concerns based on misunderstandings.
The concept of Web 2.0, ambiguously employed, cannot automatically lead a project or company to success on its own. Carrying feelings of concern while not distinguishing between the impact of the world of Web 2.0 and the impact brought on by other factors could be called a misunderstanding created by the attractiveness of Web 2.0.
O’Reilly’s Confusing Essay
The proliferation of these kinds of misunderstandings, or the various interpretations of Web 2.0, began with the publication of Tim O’Reilly’s September 2005 essay, “What is Web 2.0?” Many powerful Japanese internet sites, books, magazines and blogs have been making independent interpretations while citing O’Reilly’s essay, a majority of which talk about arguments or technology cited in this essay and make slightly different interpretations. The rapid spread of these slightly different interpretations is likely the cause of the misunderstandings.
To pursue the matter a bit further, the misunderstanding can also be attributed to O’Reilly’s essay itself, which is unorganized and difficult to understand. The “seven principles” of Web 2.0, the seven “ideas concerning the web as a platform” which is written in the “Web 2.0 Meme Map”, the seven “Core Competencies of Web 2.0 Companies”, and the eight “Web 2.0 Design Patterns” are all stressed in the essay without organization. If O’Reilly had intentionally sprinkled similar arguments in an essay aiming for the diffusion of the word “Web 2.0”, then one could call him a successful Web 2.0 evangelist.
Desirable Level-Headed Interpretations
O’Reilly has shown concern regarding the rapid spread of the concepts in various different languages of Web 2.0, as well as the mini-bubble that has been created by Web 2.0. This is consistent with my personal experiences introduced earlier.
Web 2.0 is an appropriate keyword that expresses the new internet world that is opening up. There are new business opportunities in the new world of Web 2.0, and for internet companies it is the first real chance since the internet bubble. It is necessary to rationally and logically rethink the true meaning of this word. As in the bubble years, we must not allow only a concept to wander about and generate excessive expectations or worries, and in the end result in a setback for the entire internet business.