
Why Skype is NOT Web 2.0 - maxklein
http://www.maximusklein.com/2007/04/28/why-skype-is-not-web-20/
======
dhouston
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> \-- 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
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.

------
timg
"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
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
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.

------
vlad
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.

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

