Comments on: Reaction: The Death of "Web 2.0" http://timwhitlock.info/blog/2009/02/14/reaction-the-death-of-web-20/ Tim Whitlock's personal site and blog Fri, 03 Feb 2012 12:28:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Tim http://timwhitlock.info/blog/2009/02/14/reaction-the-death-of-web-20/#comment-63 Tim Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:26:00 +0000 http://web.2point1.com/2009/02/14/reaction-the-death-of-web-20/#comment-63 not arguing at all. Just saying that legacy isn't a problem. Language is made of legacy, that's what makes it so interesting. not arguing at all. Just saying that legacy isn’t a problem.
Language is made of legacy, that’s what makes it so interesting.

]]> By: andy http://timwhitlock.info/blog/2009/02/14/reaction-the-death-of-web-20/#comment-62 andy Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:22:35 +0000 http://web.2point1.com/2009/02/14/reaction-the-death-of-web-20/#comment-62 haha - i can't even tell if you're arguing with me. haha – i can’t even tell if you’re arguing with me.

]]> By: Tim http://timwhitlock.info/blog/2009/02/14/reaction-the-death-of-web-20/#comment-61 Tim Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:19:58 +0000 http://web.2point1.com/2009/02/14/reaction-the-death-of-web-20/#comment-61 terms and semiotics often stay valid when they cease to be accurate - The play arrow '>' applies to the direction of a tape. - Digital cameras even fake a shutter sound. terms and semiotics often stay valid when they cease to be accurate

- The play arrow ‘>’ applies to the direction of a tape.
- Digital cameras even fake a shutter sound.

]]> By: andy http://timwhitlock.info/blog/2009/02/14/reaction-the-death-of-web-20/#comment-60 andy Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:11:36 +0000 http://web.2point1.com/2009/02/14/reaction-the-death-of-web-20/#comment-60 well 'television' made sense because the technology stayed the same for a long time. Now moving images are distributable, projectable, mashable; can appear anywhere in any form.. call something a 'player'. the next minute it's not being played, it's being edited. then it's being repurposed. all, potentially in a similar 'window'. is a movie still a movie when it's embedded into a live gaming experience which is also a billboard? or is it an ad? or is it a game? what about when the content isn't pre-recorded but is created live by people in different countries. what if its housing changes form and location?.... well ‘television’ made sense because the technology stayed the same for a long time. Now moving images are distributable, projectable, mashable; can appear anywhere in any form..

call something a ‘player’. the next minute it’s not being played, it’s being edited. then it’s being repurposed. all, potentially in a similar ‘window’. is a movie still a movie when it’s embedded into a live gaming experience which is also a billboard? or is it an ad? or is it a game? what about when the content isn’t pre-recorded but is created live by people in different countries. what if its housing changes form and location?….

]]> By: Tim http://timwhitlock.info/blog/2009/02/14/reaction-the-death-of-web-20/#comment-59 Tim Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:34:08 +0000 http://web.2point1.com/2009/02/14/reaction-the-death-of-web-20/#comment-59 "television".. good word, stuck around, makes sense, makes it a thing. If it was invented in today's economy, what would it be called? Not television, that's for sure. “television”.. good word, stuck around, makes sense, makes it a thing.
If it was invented in today’s economy, what would it be called? Not television, that’s for sure.

]]> By: andy http://timwhitlock.info/blog/2009/02/14/reaction-the-death-of-web-20/#comment-58 andy Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:27:42 +0000 http://web.2point1.com/2009/02/14/reaction-the-death-of-web-20/#comment-58 The real problem is words in general. But they're all we've got to satisfy our need for thingyness. As Richard Dawkins says: A thing is a collection of particles that stay together long enough to deserve a name. And we need names. Without names our heads would explode. The problem with names is that they are only satisfactory temporarily. But they stick around after their useful period. In the meantime we have conversations like this and wait for a new name to make more sense. It's a problem I don't think will ever go away because words will always be more lumbering that social and technological change. As an aside, I think people use the term web 2.0 as a reference to a certain vernacular. shiny big buttons and friendly type etc. We're lazy and visual proxies are the laziest way of describing anything. And 'social media'. Well my real problem is turning what essentially is an infinite pot of new behaviours into what sounds like a channel. "Shall we do some social media stuff?" It's a simplification that clouds the possibilities of the very idea we're trying to describe. The exciting part of 'social media' is that there is a total meltdown of channels and we can finally devise ways to connect and collaborate globally in ways that we have done in person for thousands of years. I suppose it's the ultimate paradox of human's need for 'things' - that we should deny ourselves the ocean because of our love for taps. that sounded a bit pretentious but I can't be bothered to rewrite any of it. anyway. The real problem is words in general. But they’re all we’ve got to satisfy our need for thingyness.

As Richard Dawkins says: A thing is a collection of particles that stay together long enough to deserve a name. And we need names. Without names our heads would explode.

The problem with names is that they are only satisfactory temporarily. But they stick around after their useful period. In the meantime we have conversations like this and wait for a new name to make more sense. It’s a problem I don’t think will ever go away because words will always be more lumbering that social and technological change.

As an aside, I think people use the term web 2.0 as a reference to a certain vernacular. shiny big buttons and friendly type etc. We’re lazy and visual proxies are the laziest way of describing anything.

And ‘social media’. Well my real problem is turning what essentially is an infinite pot of new behaviours into what sounds like a channel. “Shall we do some social media stuff?” It’s a simplification that clouds the possibilities of the very idea we’re trying to describe. The exciting part of ‘social media’ is that there is a total meltdown of channels and we can finally devise ways to connect and collaborate globally in ways that we have done in person for thousands of years.

I suppose it’s the ultimate paradox of human’s need for ‘things’ – that we should deny ourselves the ocean because of our love for taps.

that sounded a bit pretentious but I can’t be bothered to rewrite any of it.

anyway.

]]> By: Tim http://timwhitlock.info/blog/2009/02/14/reaction-the-death-of-web-20/#comment-57 Tim Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:38:22 +0000 http://web.2point1.com/2009/02/14/reaction-the-death-of-web-20/#comment-57 more worried that people think I'm a tw@t actually. I can cope with the £10/year cost. more worried that people think I’m a tw@t actually. I can cope with the £10/year cost.

]]> By: David Terranova http://timwhitlock.info/blog/2009/02/14/reaction-the-death-of-web-20/#comment-56 David Terranova Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:31:04 +0000 http://web.2point1.com/2009/02/14/reaction-the-death-of-web-20/#comment-56 Very well put, that's a good selection of terms and I couldn't agree more on each one of your points. ...but are you sure you're not just worried that with the death of "web 2.0" you'll have to resort to buying a new domain? Very well put, that’s a good selection of terms and I couldn’t agree more on each one of your points.

…but are you sure you’re not just worried that with the death of “web 2.0″ you’ll have to resort to buying a new domain?

]]> By: Tim http://timwhitlock.info/blog/2009/02/14/reaction-the-death-of-web-20/#comment-55 Tim Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:29:10 +0000 http://web.2point1.com/2009/02/14/reaction-the-death-of-web-20/#comment-55 I nearly added "Blogosphere", "Twittersphere", actually anything ending in "sphere" pretty much annoys me, but these terms aren't really misleading, so I left them out. I nearly added “Blogosphere”, “Twittersphere”, actually anything ending in “sphere” pretty much annoys me, but these terms aren’t really misleading, so I left them out.

]]>