

3 Web 2.0 business models – where do you fit? - briancray
http://briancray.com/2009/04/17/3-web-20-business-models/

======
mrshoe
I thought that the Web 2.0 revolution brought about a huge wave of _user-
generated content_. A Web 2.0 app doesn't necessarily have to create content
or aggregate content. It just needs to make it easy for users to create the
content and share it with their friends.

It seems like there are a lot of gaps in these categories.

And I still hate the buzzword "Web 2.0".

~~~
briancray
Good point about user-generated content, and I'd say that this still fits
under content aggregators because the content sharing is _usually_ topic-
specific and driven by information. The exception to this rule are things like
Facebook and Twitter where there is peer-to-peer communication only.

It's true that Web 2.0 as a buzzword can get tiring, but can we agree that
there is a shift to conversational media vs. one-way media? There has to be
some name to identify that shift, and Web 2.0 seems to be the word of choice
for now.

------
patio11
Is there an option for "actually charges people money" if we happen to use
AJAX?

~~~
briancray
Not sure what you mean?

~~~
patio11
You seem to have a lot of Content This and Content That and Content The Other
and I'm sort of missing the "sell things to people for money" option. (I
suppose, on a reread, that I'm a Content Advertiser under your taxonomy...
which seems to suggest that my business model is to be parasited off of by the
Web 2.0 economy?)

~~~
IsaacL
Thank you, I was going to make something similar. IANABS (I am not a Business
Student) but I believe that a business model involves revenue streams.

This kind of article _might_ be a useful way of categorizing Web apps, but
it's name suggests it would be some kind of starting point for people thinking
about monetizing their product, which it doesn't.

------
mdg
briancray, where do you fit in?

~~~
briancray
Well, one of my apps, Nearby Tweets, fits into the Content Aggregator model

