A fantastic article, How Web 2.0 evangelists make the Microsoft monopoly stronger by Andrew Orlowski, decrying the 'Web 2.0 cult' ("compared the rise of Web 2.0 enthusiasts to the problem the Police has with Freemasons") and how they are now being used by Microsoft to negate the need for regulation.
In a nutshell - we're not a monopoly as the Web is now a platform that anyone can/are using.
But I also love how the article uses some cracking phrases about those, like myself, that are Web 2.0/Enterprise 2.0 evangelists:
Me using the word "evangelist" is a prime example of how I (and those "like me") are on a wee bit of a mission, even if the mission is for the good of all (but not from God) ... then again isn't every mission, just ask Dubbya.
Also I (tend to) agree with:
Not sure about the 'personal attacks' but I too feel a little uncomfortable about how "Web 2.0 = goodness" that some automatically apply. I come from the "if it's good then go for it, who cares what label it's got".
As I said in an email (very Web 1.0) earlier, "Facebook is just a tool" and the same applies to all the "Web 2.0" thingyamajibs - they're just 'tools' to be used. A new friend asked me what I did and I dropped the "Web 2.0" phrase (by mistake) into my answer and he naturally stated that, "I didn't know there was a Web 1.0"
Most people know I love Google services, to the degree that someone recently said I should have "I [heart] Google" tattooed on my person. Google's services weren't (for a long time) "Web 2.0", just bloody useful. I still don't see Google as a Web 2.0 organisation - they don't really operate in the spirit of "Web 2.0" (read more) but that's fine and dandy and I don't care as their services are bloody handy.
Back to the article - my favourite, laugh out loud and share with the world sentence is:
Those crazy Web 2.0 phrases that no-one understands.
"community" - sorry, I know I've just lost most of you in the jargon! Prepare yourself for the even more esoteric wackiness of "conversation". I mean, Huh? Speak English Mike! You and your 'conversation', what does it all mean?!?!
As for Microsoft using the "Web 2.0" argument to get rid off/stave off regulation - on 'em for being creative.
Oh, and cop a load of this final paragraph:
OS = Windows or Mac. Nothing else. Um, Linux (and all other Unix flavours) anyone?
Oh, and The Register (where the article is published) is happy to support "Web 2.0" - this is it's article footer:
In a nutshell - we're not a monopoly as the Web is now a platform that anyone can/are using.
But I also love how the article uses some cracking phrases about those, like myself, that are Web 2.0/Enterprise 2.0 evangelists:
- cult-like
- relentless self-advancement
- "Hive Mind"
- cult/religion
- web utopians
- evangelists
- Emergent People
- mighty army of JavaScript-typing, buzzword-spouting monkeys
- happy-go-lucky Digg crowd
Me using the word "evangelist" is a prime example of how I (and those "like me") are on a wee bit of a mission, even if the mission is for the good of all (but not from God) ... then again isn't every mission, just ask Dubbya.
Also I (tend to) agree with:
It's a consensus culture that brooks no disagreement - except from the top-down, ironically enough - and reacts to criticism as if being personally attacked.
Not sure about the 'personal attacks' but I too feel a little uncomfortable about how "Web 2.0 = goodness" that some automatically apply. I come from the "if it's good then go for it, who cares what label it's got".
As I said in an email (very Web 1.0) earlier, "Facebook is just a tool" and the same applies to all the "Web 2.0" thingyamajibs - they're just 'tools' to be used. A new friend asked me what I did and I dropped the "Web 2.0" phrase (by mistake) into my answer and he naturally stated that, "I didn't know there was a Web 1.0"
Most people know I love Google services, to the degree that someone recently said I should have "I [heart] Google" tattooed on my person. Google's services weren't (for a long time) "Web 2.0", just bloody useful. I still don't see Google as a Web 2.0 organisation - they don't really operate in the spirit of "Web 2.0" (read more) but that's fine and dandy and I don't care as their services are bloody handy.
Back to the article - my favourite, laugh out loud and share with the world sentence is:
They also speak their own language: a strangulated and weirdly dehumanized collection of buzzwords: "nodes", "community", and "conversation", for example, have had the life flogged out of them.
Those crazy Web 2.0 phrases that no-one understands.
"community" - sorry, I know I've just lost most of you in the jargon! Prepare yourself for the even more esoteric wackiness of "conversation". I mean, Huh? Speak English Mike! You and your 'conversation', what does it all mean?!?!
As for Microsoft using the "Web 2.0" argument to get rid off/stave off regulation - on 'em for being creative.
Oh, and cop a load of this final paragraph:
OS innovation has never been slower: Windows and Mac users have never had to wait longer between OS releases. They've never been unhappier, either: many users of the latest incarnations of these operating systems - Vista and Leopard - feel like abused guinea pigs. And Microsoft and Apple? Never wealthier, thank you very much.
OS = Windows or Mac. Nothing else. Um, Linux (and all other Unix flavours) anyone?
Oh, and The Register (where the article is published) is happy to support "Web 2.0" - this is it's article footer:
Picky, I know but .... I'm feeling picky
Comments
Post a Comment