3 ms·

Why Skype is NOT Web 2.0

7 points by maxklein 20y ago

timg 20y ago
"Tell her about how she can now call her cousin for free [..] It fulfills a need that most humans have - the need to interact socially with others." But the same could be said of gmail - a definite web2.0 app.
- markovich 20y ago
  Gmail is not really a Web 2.0 application. It's just email, but done right. There is no attempt towards buzzword compliance in gmail. Don't confuse synchronous XML requests with Web 2.0
  - danielha 20y ago
    Arguably the point of all Web 2.0 apps is just X, but done right. The label's association with buzzwords, pastel colors, and flashy JavaScript is a side consequence.
  - timg 20y ago
    I'm pretty sure that synchronous XML requests and the certainty that js will be present are exactly what defines web 2.0..
vlad 20y ago
I don't see how Xobni, written in C#, is more Web 2.0 than Skype is. I disagree that Web 2.0 means stuff for nerds, as well. Xobni isn't for nerds.
dhouston 20y ago
i think another factor that distinguishes skype (and joost, and xobni, etc.) as not inherently "web 2.0" is serious secret sauce/engineering under the hood (protocols, algorithms, search, scalability, etc.) see http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-europe-06/bh-eu-06-biondi/bh-eu-06-biondi-up.pdf http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-europe-06/bh-eu-06-biondi/bh-eu-06-biondi-up.pdf -- very cool stuff (anti-reversing protection, crypto, clever protocols, etc.) one of the biggest drawbacks in the web 2.0 world from a business perspective is that often the technology provides little barrier to entry. with the typical web 2.0 idea you're not competing on technology but rather on distribution/PR/marketing/engineering user adoption -- things most hackers aren't inherently good at. one critical point of leverage that good hackers have is the ability to provide solutions to hard engineering problems that are usable and valued by normal people (google, skype, kazaa, bittorrent, etc.) conversely, if you're not solving hard problems, or are solving hard problems that normal people don't care about, your advantage as a good hacker is diminished.
- maxklein 20y ago
  That is a very interesting perspective, and I think that it is something that should seriously be considered by anyone working on a startup. If you solve a complex problem, and package it for the end user as easy-to-use, you have a huge advantage, because any competitor will require at least 6 months to copy your concept, giving you a comfortable head start. But if you make an online todo list, clones will appear in weeks and it will turn into a grueling marketing task. And considering the size of most web startups, investing time in marketing takes away from development time. So you cannot release new features as quickly, and sooner or later, your users start drifting away. Good programmers _should_ work on complex problems. Good marketers should hire a cheap indian team to quickly create their web app concept.
jey 20y ago
Who cares whether product X fits nebulous poorly defined hype-generating buzzword Y?

7 points by maxklein 20y ago

timg 20y ago

"Tell her about how she can now call her cousin for free [..] It fulfills a need that most humans have - the need to interact socially with others." But the same could be said of gmail - a definite web2.0 app.

markovich 20y ago
Gmail is not really a Web 2.0 application. It's just email, but done right. There is no attempt towards buzzword compliance in gmail. Don't confuse synchronous XML requests with Web 2.0
- danielha 20y ago
  Arguably the point of all Web 2.0 apps is just X, but done right. The label's association with buzzwords, pastel colors, and flashy JavaScript is a side consequence.
- timg 20y ago
  I'm pretty sure that synchronous XML requests and the certainty that js will be present are exactly what defines web 2.0..

vlad 20y ago

I don't see how Xobni, written in C#, is more Web 2.0 than Skype is. I disagree that Web 2.0 means stuff for nerds, as well. Xobni isn't for nerds.

dhouston 20y ago

i think another factor that distinguishes skype (and joost, and xobni, etc.) as not inherently "web 2.0" is serious secret sauce/engineering under the hood (protocols, algorithms, search, scalability, etc.) see http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-europe-06/bh-eu-06-biondi/bh-eu-06-biondi-up.pdf http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-europe-06/bh-eu-06-biondi/bh-eu-06-biondi-up.pdf -- very cool stuff (anti-reversing protection, crypto, clever protocols, etc.) one of the biggest drawbacks in the web 2.0 world from a business perspective is that often the technology provides little barrier to entry. with the typical web 2.0 idea you're not competing on technology but rather on distribution/PR/marketing/engineering user adoption -- things most hackers aren't inherently good at. one critical point of leverage that good hackers have is the ability to provide solutions to hard engineering problems that are usable and valued by normal people (google, skype, kazaa, bittorrent, etc.) conversely, if you're not solving hard problems, or are solving hard problems that normal people don't care about, your advantage as a good hacker is diminished.

maxklein 20y ago
That is a very interesting perspective, and I think that it is something that should seriously be considered by anyone working on a startup. If you solve a complex problem, and package it for the end user as easy-to-use, you have a huge advantage, because any competitor will require at least 6 months to copy your concept, giving you a comfortable head start. But if you make an online todo list, clones will appear in weeks and it will turn into a grueling marketing task. And considering the size of most web startups, investing time in marketing takes away from development time. So you cannot release new features as quickly, and sooner or later, your users start drifting away. Good programmers _should_ work on complex problems. Good marketers should hire a cheap indian team to quickly create their web app concept.

jey 20y ago

Who cares whether product X fits nebulous poorly defined hype-generating buzzword Y?