The programmable web continues to grow now at 550 web APIs, and with more than 2500 listed Mashups. The Google Maps API continue to be the most popular or active.
As of November 15, 2007:
> Total Mashups: 2513
> APIs: 550
> Mashups/Day: 3.19
It is very exciting to see how the web as a platform continues to grow, with companies and individuals both contributing and consuming services alike.
Source: The Programmable Web
ceo
The Programmable Web - Mashups last 6 months:
Wow, it's awesome to see the growth of services on the web for the last six months... this says a whole lot about the state of affairs, about the Web... successful or not, there is a lot of innovation happening: research, development, and collaboration. As of this writing there are a total of 1,221 Mashups, 322 APIs (services), with new Mashups being created (registered) at the rate of 2.88 per day.
ceo
[if you have an idea, you better go after it now, or someone else will soon figure it out]
Sir Tim Berners-Lee recently commented on Web 2.0:
“(Web 2.0 is) useless jargon nobody can explain and a set of technology that tries to achieve exactly the same thing as “Web 1.0″
Mr. TBL is right that Web 2.0 is the same set of technology that tries to achieve exactly the same as what he had envisioned for Web 1.0 or the web in general. I'm sure that since the beginning Mr. TBL has envisioned an open, for-everyone, resource (service)-oriented, self-sustainable web. But that takes time, and typically is user-driven, and it's evolution occurs in phases.
It is not about the technology, or about what was attempted during Web 1.0. All that was great and forms the basis for the next steps, which is where we are today. Today the web is perceived and utilized differently from 15 years ago, even from 5 years ago. The way resources (services) on the web are now getting exposed and consumed, and how user-generated content has disrupted the web is a recent event – and probably is here to stay.
Perhaps, Web 2.0 is not about the evolution of the web, but about the evolution of the people themselves with respect to (how they interact with, and use) the web. Recognizing this paradigm of participation and collaboration with respect to the users and their content, and the services on the web is what is being referred to as the next phase of the web, or Web 2.0.
Web 2.0 vs. Enterprise 2.0 – both are about collaboration and services on the web (the platform), but in two different domains: consumer vs. business respectively.
ceo
I recently read Tim O'Reilly's Four Big Ideas About Open Source… But as I read Tim's ideas I realized (that with minor changes and reordering) they also are 4 principles that describe the current philosophy of how services on the (new) web are being produced and consumed:
As I wrote in The Return of the Platform, the new web (Web 2.0) is mainly about two things that define its essence: 1) social networks (people), and 2) services on the web. And the common denominator between these two is collaboration.
ceo
In the late 1990/early 2000, before the bubble burst, platforms were a big thing – for many startups, platforms or infrastructure software was at the core of their business models. A couple of years later, when things got sour, it was not about platforms, but about “specific solutions” – you didn't speak much about your platforms, even though they were still behind the scenes making things happen. Today the platform is returning, but as a combination of vertical solutions and their related services on the web – this is software solutions as services.
Two things define the essence of Web 2.0: 1) social network software, and 2) services on the web. And the common denominator between these two is collaboration.
At the center of social networks software are human relationships and interactions that are facilitated through web portals, providing easy access and sharing to/with others – the ability collaborate with others. “Social networks” is the power behind the successes of virtual communities such as MySpace, Facebook and others. “Social networks” is also at the center of how services on the web are being produced and consumed, as seen by the current number of Mashups, and the new ones that come into existence almost on a daily basis.
Services on the web is the foundation, the engine, the platform that fuels today's (and the future) web – this is software developed as services. And these services are the new platform…
If you develop an application today, even a mobility application, very likely it will have some components or functionality on the web. Design your application with services in mind, services that are exposed and consumed by your own products, and consumed by others who aggregate your services with other services to build their core products, and in turn expose their services for others to use. This philosophy is the result of the social networking that is part of software development on the new web – it is about collaboration, as this is best represented by Mashups:
Mashup: API X + API Y = mashup Z
Expose your services on the web using some well-understood mechanisms such as REST, SOAP, XML-RPC, RSS, or simply using your own HTTP-based protocol. Try to favor REST, SOAP or feeds. Always keep it simple, but well designed, abstracted, decoupled, published, and documented.
The return of the platform is pretty cool indeed. You can put together a serious scalable application – let's say for a demo of your prototype, by using some core components that are available right now on the web, some for free and some for a fee. Example of core services that you can use now include simple queuing, simple storage, maps, searching, content sharing, and other APIs, from companies that include Amazon, Google and Yahoo!, and from the large number of Mashups – see The Programmable Web.
As a side note, think SLAs, and the importance of understanding the repercussions of the dependencies on external platforms, and of others relying on your platform or services.
ceo
[Image: www.openplatform.co.uk]
Tim O'Reilly posted a response to the Web 2.0 trademark debacle… where he expresses his discontent towards the whole issue, which is totally understandable.
Putting the trademark issue aside, I will say that am surprised that Mr. O'Reilly is surprised about how the “collective” reacted. The “collective intelligence” (or lack of intelligence) is a theme that is at the center of Web 2.0. The Web 2.0 “collective intelligence” is based on human factors, which also includes collective emotions (that is, hundreds or thousands of them, all at the same time) – and for better or worst, that is the beauty and power of the Web – the human nature. And we all know that when emotions get in the way, well, intelligence is affected 
Back to the trademark issue, what made me react negatively to this whole situation was the fact that the idea of openness and collective effort was ruined by "business" – I am not surprised by this, but I am disappointed – the “Web 2.0″ terminology was created and promoted under the “open spirit of the Web”, to describe something not built by a single individual or company, but by an entire ecosystem over time (i.e. the evolution of the Web)… And that ecosystem had great
momentum, that evolution is something that takes years to reach. Yes, the term was coined (based on observations) by Mr. O'Reilly and company (or whomever) – but the behavior, mechanics and elements occurred as part of the evolution of the Web – and no one can own that. "Web 2.0" is a term that has been assimilated by our culture, then the term was “suddenly” trademarked, yes when used for events, but still, it would prevent others (they choose) from evangelizing this concept using a descriptive title for their "event". Obviously that is going to create sentiment in the open community. And there is nothing wrong with such sentiment…
Today I read such things as "the collective was not wise", or "99.99% aren't affected thus it is not relevant to them"… and I totally disagree with that – this issue transcend the legal aspects – that is why there are so many opinions floating around – some people did cross the line, there is always one or two of those people, but there also were many open/honest opinions. But once again we are reminded of how business takes precedence over everything else (i.e. the collective, freedom, in this case). Call me idealistic… Do no evil…
But, yes, the "Web 2.0" trademark owners have all the right to protect their mark… they got there first, good for them, life goes on…
At the end of the day, it is as David McCreath, Off the Hoof, puts it:
“It’s just the web. It evolves. It’s not a software package. It’s a network. Build the apps, build the sites, focus on the user, focus on making the web a better place to do business and to connect with other people and screw the buzz phrases.”
I am a believer and implementer of the "Web 2.0" concepts (plural), I write quite a bit about Web Services and SOA and Web 2.0 and mobile. And before I move onto more productive writing, I wanted to write this piece – this is my last entry on this Web 2.0 trademark debacle. Time to move on, hasta la vista Baby…
Also, see Jon Lebkowsky's Web 2.Argh.
ceo
[Attributions: Image Source, David McCreath, Off the Hoof]
“Do as I say not as I do!”
The Web 2.0 is supposed to be about the open, collective, community-based use and evolution of the Web, so what happened here when O’Reilly trademarks “Web 2.0″ and sets lawyers on IT@Cork?
This recent trademark (or service mark) debacle is such a great example of what I've been talking about on “theory vs. practice”… If you follow my blog, you have seen my recent writings on The Web 2.0 from a Practical Perspective, and theory vs. practice.
Just the thought of trade/service marking “Web 2.0″ is totally against the spirit of the Web and the Internet, AND against the new wave of community, collective use, and evolution of the Web.
I have to admit that I am a bit confused here, and that this debacle doesn't feel like “Tim”, and maybe it is the “evil corporate side” of CMP/O'Reilly that did this…
See:
ceo
[Updated April 30, 2006]
In this essay I look at the Web 2.0 from a different perspective – the practical; the practical characteristics that have resulted in Web 2.0.
“In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; In practice, there is…”
–Chuck Reid
Chuck's quote is one of my favorite ones – it captures the reality of going to
market…
For Tim O'Reilly's definition of the Web 2.0 go here. For Ajit's perspective of Web 2.0 go here.
The definition of Web 2.0 is so high-level (and thus loose) that it means different things to different people – that makes it very flexible . I personally look at the theory, background, rationale, if it's right or not (if it makes sense), and then turn into the practical aspects as this is where the rubber meets the road. I also look “how we got here” and also include mobility, which complicates the definition a bit.
From the practical perspective, I summarize the Web 2.0 as follows:
“The open, programmable, collaborative and aggregable Web, and the related actors;
the ubiquitous Web”
This definition is illustrated next:
The above diagram illustrates the path (of these aforementioned characteristics and related actors) to the core essence of Web 2.0, which is the open, programmable, collaborative and aggregable Web that results in the Web everywhere, the ubiquitous Web.
The rest of the Web 2.0 definitions and concepts – the seven principles, collective intelligence, and so on are consequences from the above. The best instantiation or representation of this is the Mashups, and the social/community-based web.
So what all this really means? That anyone can write and publish useful (or not) services and make them available (share them) on the web. And anyone can use use and consume those services. Users go to the web to use the functionality and even create content and share with others, and developers collaborate and aggregate (mash up) various services into new services. – the open web, where users collaborate, where developers collaborate, where services and content can be created by anyone.
More on the practical side of Web 2.0
Web 2.0 is not only about AJAX and browser-based applications. Web 2.0 is about publishing, consuming, sharing open (asynchronous) services (this is especially true from the mobile perspective) – services that can be consumed by browser-based or rich local clients alike (as illustrated above). Services that exist and are published and exposed via HTTP and XML, or REST or SOAP, ATOM and RSS. These open protocols have resulted in new level of abstractions, in the open, collaborative and aggregable Web 2.0. When these services are combined with JavaScript XMLHttpRequest and related processing and techniques, then you have AJAX (a consequence).
Web 2.0 is all a consequence of the same factors: open, asynchronous, aggregable services on the web. I will add that “user-generated content” (user collaboration and sharing) is a very important
characteristic of the new Web 2.0 paradigm, which in turn is a consequence of the openness and ubiquitous of the Web.
Other areas of the Web 2.0 definition, such as “web is the platform” or the “end of software release cycle”, or “going across devices”, and “the intelligent web”, I will just touch briefly, as either they are obvious or are relative, or not really applicable. “The web is the platform” is central to Web 2.0 – no surprises here. The end of S/W release cycle is not a truism – what is true is that applications are made available public) much earlier in the development cycle (see Guy Kawasaki's “don't worry be crappy”), but the release cycle it is still there – it must exist if you follow good software product (engineering) practices. Going across devices may or not may be important for certain Web 2.0 applications, and for mobile is a must. “Lightweight Programming Models” well, lightweight they are not, but instead open and aggregable they are. And the “intelligent web” is relative – services can be intelligent or just pass through – the aggregation of services may or not be intelligent. About the collective web or collective intelligence, this is as I explained above, a direct consequence of openness, collaboration and aggregation.
From the mobility perspective, there is not much difference between mobile and desktop clients – both could be browser or local clients, for both services and data and users are at the center of Web 2.0. For both the network, the web is at the center of it. Mobile clients have the same restrictions as before – resource constrained, but now it has to handle the expensive HTTP and XML-based protocols, which could add cost to the user. Mobile clients will continue to be browser-based for applications that
queries the web and returns results, and local/rich for occasionally connected, advanced multimedia-type of applications.
In Conclusion…
I wanted to inject a different perspective to the Web 2.0. The Web 2.0 as we know it is the next step, the evolution of the Web due to the characteristics described above: open, collaborative, programmable and aggregable Web, and the rest are consequences of such characteristics and the related actors. Built from the bottom up, it is network (web), service, data and user-centric, and driven by the open and collective use of the web – the publication, consumption and aggregation of services and information on the Web.
Related blog entries:
* A Response to “Mobile Web 2.0: AJAX for mobile devices as the preferred platform for mobile app development”
* Will AJAX Save The Day (for Mobile Apps Development)?
ceo
"Great individuals invent their own values and create the very terms under which they excel." -Kierkegaard and Nietzsche
