Comments on: Flock's 'social browser' set to fly

Release date's set for browser designed to closely link with Web services for photo sharing, news and blogging.

Give the 'Web 2.0' nonsense a rest

Its just yet another meaningless buzzword used by marketing departments to make something old sound new, and by journalists who desperately want to appear 'in the know' on the latest technology trends.

[bourgtai]

If you can list three AJAX web applications...

that were created before 2003, I'll give you a cookie.

When somebody cites myspace or similar things as Web 2.0, they're using it as a buzz word, yes. What Web 2.0 really is at its core is the creation of fully-featured web-based applications which can be used in place of current applications that reside on a local computer.

Meebo, Writely, youOS, and Google Calendar are some strong showings of what Web 2.0 really is: reliable, upfront applications built on the idea that a web browser can provide all of the necessary tools to empower anyone with an internet connection.

[thedreaming]

Flock Browser

It's not a bad browser, I've played with the beta. It lets you make blog entries on the fly, add pictures to your posts from practically any source and lets you share your bookmarks with everyone on the web. It's definately a social browser. It's even built on the same framework as firefox and everyone loves firefox.

[David Dudley]

the problem

The way that Flock changed bookmarks is the biggest problem with the browser, besides it's seeming lack of speed and may or may not be their downfall depending on if they decide that A. the user must be forced to learn The Flock Way and use Shadows or Delicious or B. Flock decides that users don't necessarily like the bookmark saving paradigm shift and decides to also use the way that Firefox/Mozilla has been doing it since day 1. Flock is not a natural feeling browser and seems alien to me.

Bart said Opera was not very good because it only had features, but what are the real value adds of Flock? That's right - the features.

You can take all the components of a web browser and sell them off to the highest bidder or do your rev shares, but at the end of the day, with no adoption, it's just another invisible product offering.

[guyfrom2006]

Web 2.0 another great place for hackers

First there was the Web or Web1.0 which was like the "Duke of Hazzards". People still figure out how to trust services being offered on the web when hackers and phishers prowl sites for weak spots.

The weak spot is not in the services. The weak spot is the present web structure that permits anyone to publish content or access content anonymously.

Yeah this is great but at what cost. Now that there is another browser of the Web 2.0 version which tightly integrates other web services and this means it tightly integrates their flaws as well.

How am i to be sure that what I post using this browser is not being tracked and saved by marketing agents and Flock Watchers? Where does privacy of information go from here.

I would have prefered there would be one secured password that no one can break into rather than multiple passwords.

I think there is one company that is working towards this goal. It goes by the name of NetAlter and I see merit in their technology as their browser does not allow anonymous surfing or publishing. Rightly so....when you are not doing anything illegal, why fear revealing ones identity!!! Yet this browser makes available only that information to others that the owner has permited.

Should we call this Web 3.0? I am eagerly waiting for the NetAlter Browser to be launched sometime in 2007; till then I will not flock around the obsolete web.

[guyfrom2006]

I Agreee

So that someone can claim it is Web2.0 enabled and make more money...ha ha.

Why does the computing industry bring in another obsolete stuff to replace an old one? Millions of less techy users get sucked in and the advertisers have a field day...

[guyfrom2006]

Ditto

I am also a bit irritated when people use the Web2.0 loosely to anything that mashes up with another application. Web 2.0 should be an alternative not a replacement. It should not mix with the present set of applications and offer completely different applications and services which are more secured and also user friendly. There should not be a reason for people to install programs on their local computers and instead all applications should become a service with data residing locally. In case of Google and other biggies, I do not trust them. They keep all our data on their servers and thus be able to do whatever they want to with it within certain legal boundaries. I say, why has personal data to reside on another server. Why can't it reside locally in our own PC or our own selected server with the same being integrated with an online service.

It is like saying, I prefer to have my pictures on a image hosting server of my choosing or even my own computer (then it has to be online all the time) and this be only viewed (not being able to copy or save) using a third party web service.

They should not even be able to do a print screen of the images or content.

And if anyone wants to download my images, they should get permission from me.

All of this seems to be standard feature in the NetAlter Browser. For details check out www.netalter.com

[WulfTheSaxon]

Gecko

Why do people always confuse Firefox with Gecko?