In my circles I have a reputation of being the techy. After 4 weeks of being in the IMD program, I realize that I have been asleep in a technological world that has been whizzing by at an incredible pace.

As I look back at my first attempts at blogging they read more like book reports. It seems that in order to be heard in the blogging world it is so much more than reporting/responding/repeating/regurgitating. After our last class I spent some time reading blogs from current and previous IMD students, CNET, NASA, some news organizations. It blows my mind that people are uninhibited in sharing their thoughts and ideas. In many respects some of the blogs seemed more like journals. I write in my journal everyday, but that could be a generational anomaly. It seems the journal has gone digital along with the rest of the world.

Many things that I write in my journal I would not think of placing on the web (maybe i’m waiting for some publishing company to come knocking on my door). However, I can definitely see the benefit of putting my thoughts on things political scientific or any of my other interest that I journal about on the web. It makes me wonder about what kind of world we would have now if instead of the letter writing that occurred in the middle ages to the 1970′s between scientist, politicians, inventors, they were actually able to share their thoughts with a greater reviewing and commenting public. Our progress as a society might have advanced much quicker.

I am energized and excited even more about the time that we live in. Now, I need to pick and choose among the many things that interest me and my new discoveries since waking up from my technology hibernation what to blog about.

It was hard to get into the Attwell article. I think mainly because it seems to be such an earnest effort to categorize a process that because of it’s very nature is difficult to apply taxonomies.

I think that PLEs, as the name implies cannot be easily categorized. It will be different for every user. As Attwell states in his article, he uses a large list of applications and technologies in order to continue is lifelong learning process.

I think learning is life-long and personal. I do not think one application would be able to bring together all the components of anyone’s PLE. It would be nice if we were able to find a way to gain academic credit for the knowledge that we gain using our own methods.

It seems that O’Reilly covered a lot of topics that are still pertinent today. I am surprised that he gave such light discussion to the legal environment that has been such a big part of the success and defeats of Web 2.0 companies. Ensuring that there is legal savviness to your business plan is critical. If we look at the differences between Napster and iTunes we see a company model in Apple where acquiring the by-in from the music and movie industry was the main reason for its success. If Apple did not have the strong legal standing via relations with the RIAA, MPAA, and individual artist their fate would have been the same as that of Napster.

I am not sure I agree with the article’s statement that “if a site or product relies on advertising to get the word out, it isn’t Web 2.0.” Like it or not companies like eBay, Google, and Amazon have promoted themselves in the mass media. The viral marketing that was mentioned may have gotten them noticed among techies, but I think it was their traditional marketing campaigns that increased their visibility and market share.

I did not realize that any reviews given on Amazon.com becomes the property of Amazon.com. I think that if companies like Amazon.com who tried to litigate any of its users who posted the same review on another site would find that there would be a backlash. This aspect seems very much entrenched in an earlier model for the web and for doing business. The argument that O’Reilly makes is that Web 2.0 companies have become successful by letting the users interact and contribute. The concept of ownership of reviews may be the downfall of these companies if they ever tried to pursue the issue in court.

Lastly, I am also surprised that YouTube and sites like it were not mentioned as Web2.0 companies. Perhaps when the article was first published YouTube was still in its ascendancy and was missed by the O’Reilly radar.