I’m joining the “Web2.0 is dead” meme

1. Ian Forrester January 2, 2006 at 3:00am

   Although I agree in principle, I’m not certain we should drop web 2.0 because some people have got in mind that web 2.0 = lots of money. Bubble 2.0 is worrying but there is a change in the way people are using the web. Like email and other internet methods, the web is certainly becoming more social. Class that as web 2.0, read/write web, live web, etc, etc. But Web 2.0, the participation of the web via blogs, open api’s, social software, etc is certainly come into its own as a meme and even a word.
2. Jem January 2, 2006 at 6:27pm

   I think it still help frames the conversation and thus can be a useful term. It reminds me of my (distant) music industry past where “new” genres are coined daily and the original participants and leading lights quickly dismiss the “scene” they created as they’ve moved on. Try these incredibly obscure “bottom up” music genres; C86 or Riot Grrrl for a similar naming, adoption, misappropriation, distancing, rediscovering, .

   As it goes overground as a descriptor, then its obvious that its started to be (mis) appropriated. Social computing or the read/write web that I thought was at the heart of whatever is web 2.0 is still pertinent an activity for 2006 and pursued and embraced by the most forward thinking web companies (behomoths, start ups and msm alike). So Is web2:0 the correct moniker for that ? It’ll do.

   Also, the conference aside, the work/discussion around the term has been responsible for some great web evolutionary analysis.
   http://www.headshift.com/archives/002645.cfm for example but especially…
   http://www.adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/archives/000547.php
   and plenty more.

   That said. i’m usually too embarrassed to say the actual words in polite company.
3. tim scarfe January 2, 2006 at 7:32pm

   “So, I’m going to promise NEVER to use the term again”

   Finally
4. jon January 3, 2006 at 5:37pm

   this sums it up nicely…

   http://mpt.net.nz/archive/2005/12/27/web-2
5. Stephen Miller January 3, 2006 at 9:13pm

   I agree with Tim Scarfe, FINALLY… I’ve always hated the term, and its a complete misnomer. Virtually nothing in ‘Web2.0′ is new technology, more new ways of looking at things, and that happens slowly and gradually.

   Web2.0 suggests a new version with a sudden huge difference, not a gradual change down to greater invention. True ‘web 2.0′ would have to be a change that was sudden, abrupt and a complete deviation from todays web setups… will it happen, we can only wait and see!
6. Sam Sethi January 9, 2006 at 12:44am

   Web 2.0 is really RIP. Just finished reading the book Parallel Worlds and it is a great read if you liked “A Brief History of Time”. Two things in the book made me think of posting.

   1. He talks about various planet levels 1-3 and how the earth is currently graded as a .75 planet

   2. More importantly he has determined the current amount of digital data that currently exists to be in the order or 10 to the power 16. Google has indexed less than 10 to the power 2.

   As we apporach a level 1 planet we will have generated about 10 to the power 26 worth of digital data.

   Therefore maybe we can use this classification system to define the generational state of the web rather than lame 2.0 references.

   Sam

Post a Comment »