Comments on: My Definition of Web 2.0 http://www.ensight.org/2006/08/21/my-definition-of-web-20/ I'm The Boss @ netmobs, past CEO of b5media, author of Blog Marketing and a hardcore Canadian Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:46:26 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Staut http://www.ensight.org/2006/08/21/my-definition-of-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-49977 Staut Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:01:21 +0000 http://www.ensight.org/archives/2006/08/21/my-definition-of-web-20/#comment-49977 I'm also confused. Why is everything about making a profit and beeing a business to be web 2.0? Web 2.0 is about leveraging technology to make a more usable web, creating a desktop-like experience, and adding a bit more social (read dialog) elements to the internet. This is a great step forward... without the primary target "profit" etc.... Business = OK but if everything is about making money of of people using the internet than I think it's a shame... The people own the internet... not businesses. I don't believe in the (google) adds etc. that you see on every site. The net is too "open" to give in to that commercial attitude. I’m also confused. Why is everything about making a profit and beeing a business to be web 2.0? Web 2.0 is about leveraging technology to make a more usable web, creating a desktop-like experience, and adding a bit more social (read dialog) elements to the internet.
This is a great step forward… without the primary target “profit” etc…. Business = OK but if everything is about making money of of people using the internet than I think it’s a shame… The people own the internet… not businesses. I don’t believe in the (google) adds etc. that you see on every site. The net is too “open” to give in to that commercial attitude.

]]> By: mark evans http://www.ensight.org/2006/08/21/my-definition-of-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-49948 mark evans Fri, 08 Sep 2006 17:36:39 +0000 http://www.ensight.org/archives/2006/08/21/my-definition-of-web-20/#comment-49948 "profitable online businesses" - probably the best definition i've seen yet. take that, tim o'reilly! “profitable online businesses” – probably the best definition i’ve seen yet. take that, tim o’reilly!

]]> By: Marti http://www.ensight.org/2006/08/21/my-definition-of-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-49908 Marti Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:23:35 +0000 http://www.ensight.org/archives/2006/08/21/my-definition-of-web-20/#comment-49908 Squidoo calls itself a business (well, a "corporation"). From the<a href="http://www.squidoo.com/pages/faq" rel="nofollow"> FAQ</a>: DOES SQUIDOO MAKE A PROFIT? Yes, Squidoo is an old-fashioned corporation, with real employees and investors. We're not legally organized as a co-op; we mean that we've structured the organization so that we're in a partnership with our lensmasters. It's a co-op in the sense that the more you give, the more you get. All lensmasters with traffic get a pro-rated share in the income that we get from the Google AdSense ads that run on every page, for example. In addition, a rotating slate of lensmasters will be invited to participate in the panel that chooses the charities that get the money from our charity pool. We divide up the money we receive in a very public way. First, we pay our bills. That's direct out of pocket expenses like rent and servers and salary and benefits expenses (our CEO doesn't take a salary, and neither does our board of directors). Then, with no other deductions, we pay 5% of our post-expense revenue directly to the charity pool, 50% directly to our lensmasters and retain the rest to pay off investors and employees. Don't quit your day job yet, but you should know that as we all grow, our goal as a co-op is to pay as much money as we can to our lensmasters and to charity. MORE ABOUT MONEY While this note is a few paragraphs long, it's not complicated... If you're interested in how Squidoo deals with money, we hope you'll invest the 99 seconds it takes to read it. Our goal is to build a self-sustaining, profitable company that shares a large portion of our income with charities and with our backbone, the lensmasters who build our lenses (that's you). Squidoo calls itself a business (well, a “corporation”). From the FAQ:

DOES SQUIDOO MAKE A PROFIT?
Yes, Squidoo is an old-fashioned corporation, with real employees and investors. We’re not legally organized as a co-op; we mean that we’ve structured the organization so that we’re in a partnership with our lensmasters. It’s a co-op in the sense that the more you give, the more you get. All lensmasters with traffic get a pro-rated share in the income that we get from the Google AdSense ads that run on every page, for example. In addition, a rotating slate of lensmasters will be invited to participate in the panel that chooses the charities that get the money from our charity pool.

We divide up the money we receive in a very public way. First, we pay our bills. That’s direct out of pocket expenses like rent and servers and salary and benefits expenses (our CEO doesn’t take a salary, and neither does our board of directors). Then, with no other deductions, we pay 5% of our post-expense revenue directly to the charity pool, 50% directly to our lensmasters and retain the rest to pay off investors and employees. Don’t quit your day job yet, but you should know that as we all grow, our goal as a co-op is to pay as much money as we can to our lensmasters and to charity.

MORE ABOUT MONEY
While this note is a few paragraphs long, it’s not complicated… If you’re interested in how Squidoo deals with money, we hope you’ll invest the 99 seconds it takes to read it.

Our goal is to build a self-sustaining, profitable company that shares a large portion of our income with charities and with our backbone, the lensmasters who build our lenses (that’s you).

]]> By: Martin http://www.ensight.org/2006/08/21/my-definition-of-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-49906 Martin Thu, 24 Aug 2006 23:23:43 +0000 http://www.ensight.org/archives/2006/08/21/my-definition-of-web-20/#comment-49906 <b>Web 2.0 should be “profitable online businesses”</b> - statement of the year, Jeremy. I can see this trend (once again) happening where revenue (aka basic business) is pushed aside as long as we have the eyeballs. It's very 1999. I think with more posts like these it's time we put the term Web 2.0 to bed and just call it the Internet. When you hear someone start of with "We’re going to revolutionize ..." my eyes start to glaze over ;) Web 2.0 should be “profitable online businesses” – statement of the year, Jeremy.

I can see this trend (once again) happening where revenue (aka basic business) is pushed aside as long as we have the eyeballs. It’s very 1999.

I think with more posts like these it’s time we put the term Web 2.0 to bed and just call it the Internet.

When you hear someone start of with “We’re going to revolutionize …” my eyes start to glaze over ;)

]]> By: Loren Feldman http://www.ensight.org/2006/08/21/my-definition-of-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-49902 Loren Feldman Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:05:32 +0000 http://www.ensight.org/archives/2006/08/21/my-definition-of-web-20/#comment-49902 Perfect post. Perfect post.

]]> By: Jonathan http://www.ensight.org/2006/08/21/my-definition-of-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-49887 Jonathan Wed, 23 Aug 2006 06:05:41 +0000 http://www.ensight.org/archives/2006/08/21/my-definition-of-web-20/#comment-49887 According to eWeek, it seems, Web 2.0 is all about collaboration and rounded corners. Wikis, Sharepoint, Joomla, AJAX, that's the stuff of 2.0, at least if you read the rags. According to eWeek, it seems, Web 2.0 is all about collaboration and rounded corners. Wikis, Sharepoint, Joomla, AJAX, that’s the stuff of 2.0, at least if you read the rags.

]]> By: Oskar Syahbana http://www.ensight.org/2006/08/21/my-definition-of-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-49884 Oskar Syahbana Wed, 23 Aug 2006 05:03:41 +0000 http://www.ensight.org/archives/2006/08/21/my-definition-of-web-20/#comment-49884 Meryl, I think that is already done to some extent using javascript in the past. Besides, AJAX is just another beautiful implementation of javascript anyway. And even before wiki "business" sprung up everywhere, we already have wikipedia. Do we call it a web two point oh? Meryl, I think that is already done to some extent using javascript in the past. Besides, AJAX is just another beautiful implementation of javascript anyway. And even before wiki “business” sprung up everywhere, we already have wikipedia. Do we call it a web two point oh?

]]> By: Meryl http://www.ensight.org/2006/08/21/my-definition-of-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-49882 Meryl Tue, 22 Aug 2006 23:41:20 +0000 http://www.ensight.org/archives/2006/08/21/my-definition-of-web-20/#comment-49882 I've thrown in the towel. You simply can't put a release number on the Web, but it's done and accepted ... nothing we can do about it. When I think of web 2.0 -- it means we users are getting more involved in the web -- instead of dealing with static pages, pages change based on what we want. For those sites that don't need to get that elaborate -- we have interaction through comments, trackback, wikis and so on. I’ve thrown in the towel. You simply can’t put a release number on the Web, but it’s done and accepted … nothing we can do about it. When I think of web 2.0 — it means we users are getting more involved in the web — instead of dealing with static pages, pages change based on what we want. For those sites that don’t need to get that elaborate — we have interaction through comments, trackback, wikis and so on.

]]> By: Amrit Hallan http://www.ensight.org/2006/08/21/my-definition-of-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-49879 Amrit Hallan Tue, 22 Aug 2006 19:39:02 +0000 http://www.ensight.org/archives/2006/08/21/my-definition-of-web-20/#comment-49879 Hi Jeremy. I agree with you that there is no difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 if web companies don't have cogent business revenue models. It shouldn't be about technologies (<em>we had "killer" technologies during Web 1.0 too</em>) but about philosophy, about the attitude. All the obfuscation that happened back then shouldn't be repeated. Hi Jeremy.

I agree with you that there is no difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 if web companies don’t have cogent business revenue models. It shouldn’t be about technologies (we had “killer” technologies during Web 1.0 too) but about philosophy, about the attitude. All the obfuscation that happened back then shouldn’t be repeated.

]]> By: Oskar Syahbana http://www.ensight.org/2006/08/21/my-definition-of-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-49873 Oskar Syahbana Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:36:24 +0000 http://www.ensight.org/archives/2006/08/21/my-definition-of-web-20/#comment-49873 @Darren: Well, isn't it obvious that every business must be profitable? Or else, it shouldn't be called a business at all. Call it a charity or some sort... Plus, I think the-so-called-web-two-point-oh company DOES have a customer (you know, bloggers and the likes), they just don't have any other income stream. It's like bubble 2.0 all over again (wait... did I said again?) @Darren: Well, isn’t it obvious that every business must be profitable? Or else, it shouldn’t be called a business at all. Call it a charity or some sort…

Plus, I think the-so-called-web-two-point-oh company DOES have a customer (you know, bloggers and the likes), they just don’t have any other income stream. It’s like bubble 2.0 all over again (wait… did I said again?)

]]>