Web2.0 has been the epitome of memes, and memes built on top of other memes. Aka Bubble 2.0.
Those of us who have been evangelists of web services and social software (long before Tim O’Reilly became unhappy with “Web1.0”) have had a love/hate relationship with the term ever since it’s creation.
It was great when executives started pricking up their ears and got interested in the concepts.
But it’s just become bashed to death, to the point where mentioning the term in some circles has become nothing but an embarrassment.
“Oh yes, are you another one of those Web2.0 fanatics?”
It was during a conversation with someone from Google at their London Open House event did I realise the term was just… well, bullshit. š
Richard MacManus of the excellent Read/WriteWeb agrees and has posted Web2.0 is dead. R.I.P.
So, I’m going to promise NEVER to use the term again. Why don’t you join me?
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.
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.
“So, Iām going to promise NEVER to use the term again”
Finally š
this sums it up nicely…
http://mpt.net.nz/archive/2005/12/27/web-2
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!
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