Comments on: Steve Jobs Thinks iPhoto is Web 2.0?! Idiot…

By: Mark Davidson

Mark Davidson — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 10:29:15 +0000

So Apple is including Flickr with iPhoto? Nice. How much does that subscription cost?

iBored. *yawn*

By: Bkeeg

Bkeeg — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 05:57:30 +0000

Dude. You Guys need to chill. If Steve Jobs wants to call it a wEB 2.0 App or whatnot, let him. After all, he did invent the computer mouse.

By: sadie

sadie — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:17:27 +0000

No one likes to be called names and be insulted anymore than you do, Chris. Think about what you’re saying a bit more and be a little more humble. We should all do that. Don’t worry though, I’m sure many of us have done the same thing just as I have but those of us who don’t try to improve ourselves and avoid doing the same thing the next time are true idiots. My apologies to any idiots reading this.

By: Tim Malloroy (aka RedFlameOut)

Tim Malloroy (aka RedFlameOut) — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 13:54:50 +0000

I think the operative word here is experience. Web 2.0 is supposed (in my opinion) to make the web less like the web — and that would mean non-broswer products being able to push stuff to the web transparently. It would blur the line the between your computer and what is “out there” on the internet.

By: Eduo

Eduo — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 07:23:34 +0000

Congratulation’s on your dad’s new Emperorship, by the way. If he has any concubines free I’d be happy to be of assistance.

By: Fred Hamranhansenhansen

Fred Hamranhansenhansen — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 03:51:47 +0000

> an application that doesn’t seem to interoperate with any
> other service but Apple’s

Your friends can email their photos to your .Mac Web Gallery directly. In other words, if I create a .Mac Web Gallery of my Wedding photos, I can give all the Wedding participants a special email address for the gallery, and they can send their photos of the day to that email address and they appear in my Wedding Gallery automatically. So a week after I publish my gallery it grows from 200 to 2000 photos from dozens of photographers.

We have user-generated content (my Wedding photos), being published by a user (me) in a non-technical way (Mac), and then having content added to it by a social network (my Wedding participants), all using Ajax (aka “Web 2.0 technologies”) to provide a rich multi-platform Web experience that recalls desktop software.

The iPhone was demonstrated at the Apple Event sending a just-taken photo to another user’s .Mac Web Gallery via email. How did you miss that?

At this point you should consider writing another blog post:

Chris Pirillo Thinks .Mac Web Gallery is Web 1.0?! Idiot…

By: surfbywire

surfbywire — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 02:46:22 +0000

I don’t think Steve is the idiot. What he is talking about is RIA (Rich Internet Applications) which is part of Web 2.0 according to O’Reilly. Web 2.0 is what O’Reilly termed as the “new things/trends” on the internet since the internet became first popular. RIA is one of them, site are becoming more rich and interactive since the first html page came out.

Web 2.0 a marketing term and not a technical term. I’m sorry that you are confused about what Web 2.0 is. You should blame Tim O’Reilly for all the hype. He is a good marketer… Obviously…

By: doug petrosky

doug petrosky — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 01:35:22 +0000

Who died and made you the authority on web 2.0? Jobs said that .Mac web gallery is web 2.0 and iPhoto integrates seamlessly into it.

Web 2.0 to most people refers to a quality of experience on a web page that is far beyond classic HTML. It is when a web page feels more like a stand alone application. The website that you can create with iPhoto and .mac is without a doubt a web 2.0 site.

It may not be what you wanted but at around $60/year (don’t renew, buy boxed copies retail) for 10GB of storage and 100GB bandwidth. .Mac hosting is very reasonable.

At least that is how I see it.

By: jon

jon — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 00:57:19 +0000

———–
My point is that Apple isn’t half as open as people think it is. I’m not arguing the simplicity,
———-

no, your point was that you don’t understand what the interaction is between iPhoto and the web… if you were trying to wait for some other developer to make something with an API to reproduce the experience then you are waiting in Vain..

the reason the iPod and iPhone and iMac are successful products is because they aren’t piece milled together into an unrecognizable hodge podge… rather nicely integrated devices, the same approach happens with dot mac, iPhoto and a dozen other apps that Apple is providing for a rich Web 2.0 experience…

were you waiting for someone to create an API so you can upload your photo that you just took from your iPhone to flicker automatically and your home computer at the same time?

you’ve got a long wait ahead of you… while the rest of us use our “closed” system to actually experience web 2.0 COMPLETELY with hardware such as the iPhone…

jon.

By: jon

jon — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 00:51:15 +0000

——- Apple. If you’re gonna call something “Web 2.0,” at least understand what people expect that experience to be. iPhoto is as much “Web 2.0″ as my dad is the emperor of China.————–

you apparently didn’t actually see the presentation…. if you did, you would know that he is referring to the Web 2.0 experience of Dot Mac.. and how the web page is a 2.0 experience with several features found usually in applications, (after it was created using iphoto, or imovie)

you may want to save your comments until you see the web experience…

jon.

By: Marcos

Marcos — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 23:16:26 +0000

Well, I don’t know how you define “web 2.0″ but some would argue that the AJAX/Flash interface of the new .Mac gallery qualifies. It is pretty nice looking, and I think better than flickr in many ways. (An example gallery is linked on Daring fireball)

Your main beef seems to be that iPhoto doesn’t upload to other, 3rd-party web sharing services, particularly flickr.

How many 3rd party option is Apple to take it upon themselves to support exactly to make you happy? flickr? Gallery2? Kodak? Photobucket? There are dozens of photo sharing sites – when is enough enough? I would imagine the copious number of them is why Apple has given iPhoto a plug-in ability that others have used to develop plug-ins that work quite well. I love iPhoto to facebook plugin.

Maybe they should make it easier to develop such plug-ins. But, you know their whole selling point for .Mac is that it integrates with iLife and without that hook – it’s even less a value. (Personally, I’ve never liked .Mac.)

However, I will concede that without plugins like the the facebook exporter and the gallery2 exporter getting images from iPhoto to non .Mac photo sites is a royal pain.

By: Fake Steve Jobs

Fake Steve Jobs — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:40:46 +0000

“Web 2.0″ has nothing to do with integrating third-party API’s. It’s about creating a rich desktop-like experience inside a web browser, and that’s what Web Galleries do. Sure, using third-party API’s might help spiff-up your app, but we already have a kick-ass web development toolkit called WebObjects.

And remember, Windows users can view AND CONTRIBUTE to Web Galleries as easily as Mac users can. I even showed slides of it running on a PC.

By: david

david — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:08:32 +0000

Somehow I wound up with your articles coming into my aggregator last week but I’m pretty sure you’ll be gone next week. Maybe you are just having a bad fortnight, but tell me, do you ever do anything but bitch?

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 20:49:26 +0000

You’re still off. Jobs referred to the .Mac Gallery web site as Web 2.0, because it mimicks a great deal of the iPhoto user interface (including the new skimming feature) through any web browser on a Mac, PC, Linux, etc.

There’s a link to one on Apple’s web site, or just watch that portion of Jobs’ keynote.

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 20:48:01 +0000

What’s Web 2.0 mean? How long’s a piece of string?

Steve Jobs seems to think it means web applications. Engadget quotes him:

“This is a true Web 2.0 app. Web app behaving just like iPhoto on my desktop.”

http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/07/live-from-apples-summer-mac-product-press-conference/

It seems in his mind it’s Web 2.0 if a “page” behaves “just like” (something like?) a desktop application.

I doubt this is what most people mean by the term. But personally I don’t much care whether Jobs is “misusing” the term since I have no stake in the jargon.

As for the question of interaction – he seems to be aware of it. It seems there’s provision for third-parties to upload as well as download:

“You publish on .Mac, someone is on a PC, there is special email address they can get from the web gallery, and they will appear on your web gallery.”

Granted *someone* – the person whose gallery it is – needs a .mac subscription. But that’s not different to any other service: you either pay or you accept to live with advertising (and possibly data mining). I agree with you in principal that it’s better when APIs are open, but I don’t know I’m too concerned that alternative products might not be able to “build” or sync with an iPhoto gallery. Or is the problem the other way round: that iPhoto doesn’t export to any alternative service? It will with Fraser Spiers plug-in:

http://connectedflow.com/flickrexport/

I don’t see any really huge problems with what Apple has done. I think the .mac Galleries look nice enough and will suit some people. I reckon I’ll stick with Flickr myself.