What's with the 'Web 2.0' angst?
Oh the Angst…
Last night I attended the Beyond Web 2.0 event in Fremont, CA. One of the main things I noticed there was the angst and inner struggle some of the presenters (and much of the audience) seemed to have with the term 'Web 2.0'.
One presenter started his presentation with his #1 prediction for the future: that the phrase 'Web 2.0' will become a "dirty word". In discussing this, he admonished us that "Web 2.0 is harmful - don't use it." Then, strangely enough, he proceeded to use 'Web 2.0' liberally throughout the rest of his talk.
The next presenter also seemed distraught over the term and stated in his introduction: "There is no such thing as Web 2.0." Then after disavowing it, he launched into his speech with the term 'Web 2.0' littered throughout and even focusing almost exclusively on what he saw as the defining characteristics of Web 2.0 and 3.0.
It was quite comical and got me thinking about why they had unapologetically denounced the term, yet then felt compelled to use it extensively in their presentations.
Pink Fishnet Stockings
Those pink fishnet stockings sure were hot when you took them out of that crisp new package. But man, when you saw your aging drama teacher wearing the same ones with bulges in all the wrong places, you almost lost those tater-tots you ate for lunch. You ran to the bathroom and tore them off - but wait, you didn't shave your legs, and it was cold outside, so you grudgingly pulled them back up and hung your head as you walked through the halls the rest of the day in misery.
Such has it been with 'Web 2.0' - a victim of its own trendiness. It didn't really have much of a chance after the marketing folks got hold of it. What might have been a plain and useful term was soon used to describe 'hot' new kludgeware companies with 'sizzle'. Of course, nothing is more nauseating to the alpha-nerds than this type of spasmodic marketing hype. And so, 'Web 2.0' is not harmful, useless, or non-existent as some believe - it has just become *embarrassing*… like those poor fishnets.
Laziness - the Virtue
So, why the irresistible compulsion to use the phrase 'Web 2.0'? Laziness. Expediency. Pure and simple. It's a *much* more efficient way of presenting a larger concept than explaining the full concept every time you need to use it.
For example, if you know nothing about 'Saturday Night Fever' and I tell you that it's a 70's disco movie, you'll be able to visualize it immediately. Why? Because you know all those things that are associated with the 70's - the hairstyles, the clothes, the lingo, etc. There is a fuzzy set of characteristics that generally define the 70's. So I just tell you the era of the movie rather than a long description of the hairstyles and clothing.
Web 2.0 is nothing different. It's a classification that has a fuzzy set of characteristics - just like Generation X or the Baroque period or the Pleistocene era. It's quite hilarious to see all the hand-wringing by folks trying to specify an *exact* definition for Web 2.0. It's like someone losing sleep trying to nail down *exactly* what the hippie era entailed. You can't. It's fuzzy. There are overlaps. It's O….K…. just breathe. You've dealt with ambiguity before - you can get through this ;)
The Whole Point
When these presenters used the term 'Web 2.0', they did so fluently despite their inner turmoil. And from what I could tell, the audience was able to understand the presentations and the term just fine. It seems like they innately knew that it was just the description of an era of the web - they just hadn't made the connection consciously.
Look at these roughly defined generations of the web:
Web 1.0: From ~1995 to ~2003
Web 2.0: From ~2004 to ~2008
Web 3.0: From ~2008 to ???
Then just plug into each 'version' what was generally going on with the web at that time and presto! You have solved the whole mystery that has been propelling this debate!
Hopefully this will give some of the tortured souls of Web 2.0 some rest…
Update: For excellent coverage of the Beyond Web 2.0 event see Jeremiah Owyang's review.
01 Feb 2007 Matt Jaynes
Killer great first post.
I think that term was initiated in the early days by O'Reilly, he spotted a pattern. It's grossly misued now, and there are several smaller factions within this greater trend to look at. Open Data, Cloud Storage, RIA, Sharing of proflies, bottom up information, long tail, wisdom of crowds, blah blah blah.
I focus on the intersection of how companies use these tools, so the term "Social Media" applies well for me.
As it ends up, I got into a nice little debate, as I defend the term, see here:
http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2007/01/31/hate-the-term-social-media-help-come-up-with-a-better-term/
Welcome to the blogosphere, I'm looking to seeing you around more!
I couldn't agree more. Web 2.0 is really just a buzzword at the moment, and no can really define it. Some of the arguments on Digg are very comical - "Everybody's got it wrong. Allow me to explain Web 2.0. If you see a site with lots of gradients, that's Web 2.0. A Web 2.0 site must have gradients and it's done with Ruby." or "No, a Web 2.0 site is one that uses AJAX.".
Most people don't understand Web 2.0 because of their attempt to give it a clear definition. Others are just born clueless.
Thanks Jeremiah, and great points about "Social Media". Another useful abstraction term, despite some folks objections ;)
Cheers Ankur. I know what you mean - I'm hoping that folks can come to peace on terminology and focus on more useful applications. Btw, great job on the Gregarious plugin - I'm using it on this site!