James Anthony
February 26, 2007, 10:26 AM
Thanks for the email and the explanation, Steve, but I still don't get it.
I looked at the person's article you directed me to and I also looked at his website and blog.
There was no mention of web 2.0 anywhere on his website and one blog post that talked a little bit about it but nothing that came anywhere close to what I would call "rebranding" himself.
I know you build websites, and from what I see and hear, you're really good. But from looking at your own website, I see that you build the sort of sites where web 2.0 doesn't really come into play. It has no real purpose there.
I'm guessing that when you are focused on that sort of thing every day, that web 2.0 talk is nothing more than a distraction because it doesn't fit in with what you are doing.
Also, we very likely have totally different opinions on what web 2.0 really is because I thought your example of USNET groups was way off - not even close to what I see web 2.0 as.
Back then, before Al Gore created the internet, we didn't have anywhere near the technology to pull off some of the stuff we are seeing today and while most all of it was probably thought of, as Pete put it, "natural progression", it was also impossible with the technology at that time and cost prohibitive.
Today, the technology is cheap and available to most anyone to pull it off.
There's no question in my mind that web 2.0 is for real for those of us using it but I can see where it can be meaningless to those who don't.
Jim
I looked at the person's article you directed me to and I also looked at his website and blog.
There was no mention of web 2.0 anywhere on his website and one blog post that talked a little bit about it but nothing that came anywhere close to what I would call "rebranding" himself.
I know you build websites, and from what I see and hear, you're really good. But from looking at your own website, I see that you build the sort of sites where web 2.0 doesn't really come into play. It has no real purpose there.
I'm guessing that when you are focused on that sort of thing every day, that web 2.0 talk is nothing more than a distraction because it doesn't fit in with what you are doing.
Also, we very likely have totally different opinions on what web 2.0 really is because I thought your example of USNET groups was way off - not even close to what I see web 2.0 as.
Back then, before Al Gore created the internet, we didn't have anywhere near the technology to pull off some of the stuff we are seeing today and while most all of it was probably thought of, as Pete put it, "natural progression", it was also impossible with the technology at that time and cost prohibitive.
Today, the technology is cheap and available to most anyone to pull it off.
There's no question in my mind that web 2.0 is for real for those of us using it but I can see where it can be meaningless to those who don't.
Jim
