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.
