Form (closed) vs. Antiform (open)

Purpose vs. Play

Design vs. Chance

Hierarchy vs. Anarchy

Finished work vs. process/performance/happening

Distance vs. Participation

Genre/boundary vs. Intertextuality

Selection vs. Combination

Lisible (readerly) vs. Scriptable (writerly)

Determinacy vs. Indeterminacy

Etc.

(From Hassan, "The Culture of Postmodernism" Theory, Culture, and Society, 1985)

The debate about modernism and postmodernism has a couple interesting things to tell us about the future of Web 2.0. The first lesson is that this shift in how the Internet is used is not just about technology, but also is deeply tied up with our particular moment in the evolution of consumer capitalism. Web 2.0 companies tend to conceive themselves (and allow their users to identify as) opposed to the domination of software and the Internet by “old economy” corporations – the guys who “just don’t get it.” Yet at the same time, this oppositional gesture or attitude is steadily being coopted by those very same megacorporations – viz. Craigslist selling a stake in itself to eBay, Flickr getting bought by Yahoo, MySpace getting bought by Fox, etc. The same thing happened with postmodern art: at first it was meant as a (playful, ironic) resistance to corporate/museum art and representational forms, but by the 1980s had become just a fashionable way to decorate a cheap and tawdry shopping mall. In other words, eventually “Web 2.0” will cease to be a meaningful category: all Web sites and software will be “Web 2.0,” and the rebellious quality of Web 2.0 will become merely a useful marketing gimmick. That moment may already have arrived for the consumer Web. But we’re only at the very beginning of this process on the Business Web. Most of the old software dinosaurs are only just now waking up to the fact that the Web 2.0 asteroid has hit their world.

The second important lesson, which at first blush seems almost at odds with the first lesson, is that at some point there will be a backlash against Web 2.0. Specifically, there will be a backlash against the more anarchic, freewheeling, serendipitous aspects of Web 2.0, typified by the attitude you seen thrown around about the “permanent beta.” Instead, users will seek a return to a more “grounded” and “determined” experience of the Web. We already are seeing this happen with, for example, MySpace’s decision to start censoring personal pages, and Wikipedia’s imposition of rules for how some content is created. In other words, crucial to creating good Web applications will be careful attention to the rules that govern how users can interact with other, and a relentless focus on the quality of the user experience.

For salesforce.com, one thing we take from this insight is that we devote a lot of time to thinking about the rules and structures we want to put into place around the AppExchange. We listen to our customers and partners every day to find out what matters to them, but we don’t want to just create a free-for-all where anything goes. Another thing we take away is that security, reliability, availability, and performance are our #1 job. Web 2.0 represents a great set of ideas and ideals, but it should never allow vendors to take their eye off the ball when it comes to quality.