<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Different Types of Web 2.0</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bluethots.com/2009/02/03/the-different-meanings-of-web-20/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bluethots.com/2009/02/03/the-different-meanings-of-web-20/</link>
	<description>Synergising People and Technology</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 10:24:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dellemente Net-Magazine - Where Web Technology Means Business.</title>
		<link>http://www.bluethots.com/2009/02/03/the-different-meanings-of-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-14917</link>
		<dc:creator>Dellemente Net-Magazine - Where Web Technology Means Business.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:44:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bluethots.com/?p=342#comment-14917</guid>
		<description>[...] http://www.bluethots.com/2009/02/03/the-different-meanings-of-web-20/ Related [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] <a href="http://www.bluethots.com/2009/02/03/the-different-meanings-of-web-20/" rel="nofollow">http://www.bluethots.com/2009/02/03/the-different-meanings-of-web-20/</a> Related [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean Lew</title>
		<link>http://www.bluethots.com/2009/02/03/the-different-meanings-of-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-2838</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean Lew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Feb 2009 01:53:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bluethots.com/?p=342#comment-2838</guid>
		<description>Try Twitter or instant messaging. It works pretty well with people on the go.

As for document sharing, you could try google docs (personal or enterprise version), Zoho or slideshare are all pretty good too. It really depends on your detailed requirements too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Try Twitter or instant messaging. It works pretty well with people on the go.</p>
<p>As for document sharing, you could try google docs (personal or enterprise version), Zoho or slideshare are all pretty good too. It really depends on your detailed requirements too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Confused Web 2.0 User!</title>
		<link>http://www.bluethots.com/2009/02/03/the-different-meanings-of-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-2818</link>
		<dc:creator>Confused Web 2.0 User!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:50:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bluethots.com/?p=342#comment-2818</guid>
		<description>On a different note, there has been increasing interest in http://a.nnotate.com/, could you recommend a similar, more &#039;classier&#039; version of this programme?I feel it looks rather childish etc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On a different note, there has been increasing interest in <a href="http://a.nnotate.com/" rel="nofollow">http://a.nnotate.com/</a>, could you recommend a similar, more &#8216;classier&#8217; version of this programme?I feel it looks rather childish etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Confused Web 2.0 User!</title>
		<link>http://www.bluethots.com/2009/02/03/the-different-meanings-of-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-2817</link>
		<dc:creator>Confused Web 2.0 User!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:45:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bluethots.com/?p=342#comment-2817</guid>
		<description>Hi all, I don’t know if ye can help me but what would you suggest to be the best web 2.0 programme to help businesses? Say for example somebody in England is trying to contact somebody who is in a taxi in China using his or her Blackberry?? How would ye go about this type of problem of people trying to contact each other over email? Can ye suggest a better alternative using Web 2.0? I know this sounds pretty vague but any help would be really appreciated!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi all, I don’t know if ye can help me but what would you suggest to be the best web 2.0 programme to help businesses? Say for example somebody in England is trying to contact somebody who is in a taxi in China using his or her Blackberry?? How would ye go about this type of problem of people trying to contact each other over email? Can ye suggest a better alternative using Web 2.0? I know this sounds pretty vague but any help would be really appreciated!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sid</title>
		<link>http://www.bluethots.com/2009/02/03/the-different-meanings-of-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-2781</link>
		<dc:creator>sid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:56:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bluethots.com/?p=342#comment-2781</guid>
		<description>Whirlpool is an interesting case ... and if telcos are not there at this forum they might be missing something ... they might enhance this community by appointing their people (if they havnt yet) ... it will then be like getsatisfaction.com ( I really like this one)

yes you are right in the scope of knowledge worker and his need for collaboration within organization and importance of E2 is very much evident. However what i meant was B2C part of E2 ... B2C communication is to some extent function of vertical ... Meida / PR / advertising embrace it more easily than Banks / Insurance / Gov etc ... Thoughts?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whirlpool is an interesting case &#8230; and if telcos are not there at this forum they might be missing something &#8230; they might enhance this community by appointing their people (if they havnt yet) &#8230; it will then be like getsatisfaction.com ( I really like this one)</p>
<p>yes you are right in the scope of knowledge worker and his need for collaboration within organization and importance of E2 is very much evident. However what i meant was B2C part of E2 &#8230; B2C communication is to some extent function of vertical &#8230; Meida / PR / advertising embrace it more easily than Banks / Insurance / Gov etc &#8230; Thoughts?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean Lew</title>
		<link>http://www.bluethots.com/2009/02/03/the-different-meanings-of-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-2757</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean Lew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:02:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bluethots.com/?p=342#comment-2757</guid>
		<description>Actually you are right. Intranet 2.0 is a more appropriate term for internal web 2.0 application. These terms are pretty confusing to start with. =) Enterprise 2.0 would then be for anything Web 2.0 that is implemented by an organisation.

Whirlpool is an interesting case. Even though there is alot of C2C communication that goes on. I am sure that most (if not all) telecommunication companies are spending time and effort to monitor what is going on in these forums. After all, the words that is written on these forums will directly impact the possibility of getting new customers in future. You can argue both ways, C2C or C2B, really depends on which angle you are looking at it from. 

Ermm.. I used to think in a similar fashion as you on E2 implementation. I think as the job function of knowledge workers becomes intertwined with many other functions, sectors and markets, E2 becomes a more viable business. One example is, as a consultant, I prepare proposals and it requires input from different technology solution groups, business consulting team, strategy team, the finance team, HR team, senior management, legal teams and  many others. I can clearly see that, at least in a consulting business, E2 is very applicable. (I hope I have interpreted your statement correctly)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually you are right. Intranet 2.0 is a more appropriate term for internal web 2.0 application. These terms are pretty confusing to start with. =) Enterprise 2.0 would then be for anything Web 2.0 that is implemented by an organisation.</p>
<p>Whirlpool is an interesting case. Even though there is alot of C2C communication that goes on. I am sure that most (if not all) telecommunication companies are spending time and effort to monitor what is going on in these forums. After all, the words that is written on these forums will directly impact the possibility of getting new customers in future. You can argue both ways, C2C or C2B, really depends on which angle you are looking at it from. </p>
<p>Ermm.. I used to think in a similar fashion as you on E2 implementation. I think as the job function of knowledge workers becomes intertwined with many other functions, sectors and markets, E2 becomes a more viable business. One example is, as a consultant, I prepare proposals and it requires input from different technology solution groups, business consulting team, strategy team, the finance team, HR team, senior management, legal teams and  many others. I can clearly see that, at least in a consulting business, E2 is very applicable. (I hope I have interpreted your statement correctly)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sid</title>
		<link>http://www.bluethots.com/2009/02/03/the-different-meanings-of-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-2753</link>
		<dc:creator>sid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 00:17:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bluethots.com/?p=342#comment-2753</guid>
		<description>Nice post! 

To my understanding Intranet 2.0 is more appropriate term for what you have defined as enterprise 2.0, for enterprise 2.0 should be a broader term inclusive of intranet2.0 and B2C 2.0.

Its about conversations so we should not actually differentiate between B2C and C2B. B and C are conversing that is it.  Whirlpool example is more of a C2C to me than C2B. Its forum of people helping people they are not doing it on behalf of telcos. 

What are your thoughts?

yes Enterprise 2.0 is very tricky business,  I understand it also is a function of industry vertical. Some industries like FMCG, Media etc find easy to embrace it. While others like Government, Banks, Insurance etc its really difficult affair. Will be good if your research shows some trends on those lines.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice post! </p>
<p>To my understanding Intranet 2.0 is more appropriate term for what you have defined as enterprise 2.0, for enterprise 2.0 should be a broader term inclusive of intranet2.0 and B2C 2.0.</p>
<p>Its about conversations so we should not actually differentiate between B2C and C2B. B and C are conversing that is it.  Whirlpool example is more of a C2C to me than C2B. Its forum of people helping people they are not doing it on behalf of telcos. </p>
<p>What are your thoughts?</p>
<p>yes Enterprise 2.0 is very tricky business,  I understand it also is a function of industry vertical. Some industries like FMCG, Media etc find easy to embrace it. While others like Government, Banks, Insurance etc its really difficult affair. Will be good if your research shows some trends on those lines.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Book Review: Groundswell</title>
		<link>http://www.bluethots.com/2009/02/03/the-different-meanings-of-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-2521</link>
		<dc:creator>Book Review: Groundswell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:39:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bluethots.com/?p=342#comment-2521</guid>
		<description>[...] book was focused mainly on Business to Consumer type web 2.0 relationship but it also briefly touched on groundswell within the organisation (internal [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] book was focused mainly on Business to Consumer type web 2.0 relationship but it also briefly touched on groundswell within the organisation (internal [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
