Russell Shaw, Dave Winer and Richard MacManus have each declared that Web 2.0 is dead and/or that it never existed.
In the words of Kyle from Southpark, “You Bastards”.
These attacks come from the Web 2.0′s biggest champions, making them that much harder to bear. Dave Winer and Richard MacManus are members of the Web 2.0 Workgroup, and Richard also writes a ZDNet blog called Web 2.0 Explorer. These are the elite troops of the new web, and the last people I’d expect to hear say these things (well, except for Dave, who tends to say whatever is on his mind).
Web 2.0 is not a marketing slogan. It is the slogan of a people’s army. Our army. They are words that help us explain the explosion of conversations on the web, and justify our enthusiasm for innovation. Web 2.0 is why I came back from my exodus at the fringes of technology, to explore the frontier of the new consumer web.
Look at Flickr. Look at Delicious. Look at Riya. And 1,000 more. My God, how dare you tell me that something amazing and new, completely new, hasn’t happened on the web. Web 2.0 isn’t about wikipedia definitions and neatly wrapped bundles of functionality that non-innovators can use to understand what’s going on. It’s about the web coming out of a nuclear winter and bursting forth in a fit of chaotic growth. It’s about hope and love and getting ridiculously wealthy by ignoring the wisdom of those around you who say “your idea, it sucks”.
Don’t be so eager to tear down this castle in the sky. It may not be so easy to build it yet again.
Pssst, I have joined the Dark Side. I to believe that it is becoming a liability more then a rally cry.
I second Newberger.
Oh. My. God.
You must take down your blog, which you no longer believe in, and replace it with a geocities home page immediately.
It’s ok Mike really it is take some deep breaths and it will be fine we can get you some help. I know it’s hard to accept but it is true
Yow, that’s kind of personal Mike.
There are so many ways to respond to this.
First, I didn’t just blurt out whatever was on my mind, and I resent you disqualifying what I said (and pretty much everything else I say) on that basis.
Second, I am not tearing down any castles in the sky. Mike, I build castles, and at thevrisk of being a little arrogant, I think I built a lot of the castle that O’Reilly and Battelle call Web 2.0, but somehow I’m not invited to their party.
Conclusion: I don’t think Web 2.0 does it, and I think I’ve been pretty damned consistent in saying that.
I see a smiley at the end of your post, so I’ll put one here too, although I’m not sure what yours means.
;->
My Smiley meant I was kidding. About the entire post.
I don’t care about “web 2.0″ as a meme. I just love all the new companies coming out, all the new innovation. And yeah, Dave, you invented most of the stuff that these companies have been built on. I’m not kidding when I tell people there will be a statute of you up in Silicon Valley someday.
I do think Richard has put himself in a bit of a pickle, given the name of his ZDnet blog though.
Mike, you might want to listen to “Everything Will be all right” by The Killer. it will help to ease the pain.
David, I need a hug.
Okay.
http://images.scripting.com/archiveScriptingCom/2005/12/12/wheaties.jpg
Dave
Dave W – I love it.
Mike,
While I agree this further muddies the waters for folks and makes it hard for them to understand what’s going on, I’m not that worried.
There just isn’t anything else happening like Web 2.0, as evidenced by all the exciting things you cover constantly on TechCrunch. So it’ll all sort itself out eventually.
I expect 2006 will be a very big year for Web 2.0.
I just wish we had a better name.
Best,
Dion
Thank you Michael, for saying something. I totally agree and hopefully they’ll come back around. Web 2.0 is a great thing.
Dion, You hit the nail on the head “I just wish we had a better name.” There needs to be a new rally cry that people will ummm flock(didn’t want to use that word)to.
How about Web 2.1?
Just kidding – that was the point back then as well, its not about technology, its about the people. The spirit that soars when one feels like they are invited to the party and it is where they belong – being a part of something bigger than yourself and an era in time that is of great importance. Coming out of the pessimism riddled economic winter into the dawn of a new spring with newfound energy and optimism. It is all those things and more. My only willing acceptance of the phrase was in light of the fact that common agreement on a phrase’s meaning is easy shorthand for those who “get it”.
A long time ago I said we should just call it “The Open Web” because that is what is different. The 3C’s are still viable, but the walls to the garden have been torn down. Innovation is still key, but high standards of service (up time!) and communication are the valuable differentiators. Open standards, open data sharing, open API’s, open source and open minds win the day. The Open Web…. of people; of services; of technology; of ideas; of everything. The interconnected web of all that is humanity.
My response here:
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/cat_eats_pigeon.php
To chime in: Web 2.0 is not a pure marketing term, rather a “status” term, a benchmarking phrase to help a new community of users mesh (or mashup) with the pioneers of the last dot.boom. Sure, one can always argue against the merits of symbolism over substance — but in the case of Web 2.0, there is clear evidence that the substance documented (eg: companies, concepts, capitol) benefits from a symbolic name–Web 2.0, 3.0, X, etc. Sure, the problem of placing the symbol ahead of substance is one to be on the look out for, but I think this discussion is a tad bit premature given the current upswing of web innovation. What’s in a name? Yes, Web 2.0 is only a name–but it’s also a widely used tag that helps us redefine our perception of web interactivity and connectivity–the LiveWeb as Doc Searles notes. All linguistics aside, there is a real community brewing here, one that I’m excited to be a part of, whether it’s called Web 2.0 or Webalicious 7.5…
how about let’s just call it: “web”
nothing really has changed, it’s pointless to call it web2.0 – just thinking has matured.
web2.0 is just some amorphous neoplatonic ideal that combines people’s dissatisfaction with the current web, greed, and desire to sound cool.
why not just call everything that’s interactive and cool, like del.icio.us – ‘web’ and everything that’s static and boring like corporate flash websites – ‘not the web’.
one helluva post! You hit the nail on lots of open coffins ;-o
>Look at Flickr. Look at Delicious. Look at Riya
And what connects Flickr, del.icio.us and Riya besides the fact that they were all startups trying to get flipped to Google, Microsoft & Yahoo?
Web 2.0 is about the renaissance of the Silicon Valley startup culture that dominated the tech media during the DotBomb years. Whether this is something that should be lauded and celebrated is an interesting question. In the meantime Tim O’Reilly can keep charging us almost $3,000 a head to attend conferences where BigCos, VCs and startups try to pitch themselves to us.
Maybe the new name for the Web 2.0 Workgroup should be: Web 2006 Workgroup? A year changing denotion sure keeps the eye on the target (new products/services/startups) as opposed to buying into some slippery slogan, of course it does mean buying a new domain every year, but those are getting to be less than the cost of a cup of coffee.
Mike – serious request: please update your OPML file .. it’s not been updated since Monday Oct 17, 2005 at 07:32:37 GMT, see: http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20051115/2613/
If there is a newer version somewhere else, please point to it.
Some of us would rather see your OPML getting newer version numbers
If you would like help maintaining that let us know. Thanks 
I think what’s really dead is the discussion of whether Web 2.0 is real/unreal/a bubble/a whatever – it’s like blogging about blogging…it gets old.
Thanks for this great post, Mike, even if it was tongue-in-cheek, the basis is bang on. Vive la revolution!
T.
“Web 2.0″ is pure nonsense and utter hype.
Face facts, there’s nothing that any “Web 2.0″ firm does that couldn’t have been done in 1995 with the WWW.
“The map is not the territory; the menu’s not the meal.”
It’s the *label* “Web 2.0″ which has no real functional and consensual definition, so of course you’d expect people to argue all types of things over it.
“Web 2.0 is not a marketing slogan. It is the slogan of a people’s army. Our army.” That sounds strange to me… implies a militaristic, zero-sum, “us vs them” mindset…?
hugs all around, fellas–Who care’s what’s it called–it’s what’s being created–and torn down–that matters.
s
John, does “bursting forth in a fit of chaotic growth” sound like zero sum? Does “It’s about hope and love” sound militaristic? Christ. I’m turning comments off.
You have a great thing in your favor.. AJAX.
AJAX was written off as being a buzzword/marketing term by a lot of people, but it totally lived on and, dare I say it, has even become respected! Just having the term AJAX made it more marketable and easier to popularize.. which is why we now have Web 2.0 anyway.
As a VC and former investment banker, I am always struck with the power of naming when outsiders are trying to monetrize a trend. It’s important to note that the Web is vibrant and notwithstanding the skeptics who “want to avoid another bubble”, there are mega trends out there. Whether you call it Web 2.0, or Pork Sausage Rolls on Parade, there are innovations and growth surrounding us in the Web. I agree with Dion, 2006 will be an exciting year for the Web — whatever name we use to describe the trends.
The first rule of Web 2.0 is YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT WEB 2.0!
Ok I’ll say it. I like Web 2.0 theme. Soon I like Web 3.0… I never ever associated web 2.0 with o’reilly and john battelle. I do think that it’s about development. I don’t see it as someones party. It’s about us.
I agree with the general consensues that the term “Web 2.0″ is overhyped. I guess it first comes down to whether you believe there is a general theme in new internet businesses or not. If you do, then either we use a phrase “new internet businesses” or we use a term like “Web 2.0″. There’s going to be disagreement about what the theme consists of regardless.
I know Mike’s post was in jest, but I would hate to think we’d discard a meme just because some people have a beef with O’Reilly. Never mind being sick of Web 2.0 as a term, I’m far more bored with arguments over who invented what. It’s a negative sum gain – the more people bitch about getting credit for something, the more that something is devalued.
Peter Cooper makes the best point here. Is the term neoplatonically ideal? No. Is it simple and useful? Often.
What does neoplatonically mean? That’s a big word.
You’re a net luminati and can’t even pick up the online dictonary to check?
“Ne·o-Pla·to·nism also Ne·o·pla·to·nism Audio pronunciation of “neoplatonic” ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-pltn-zm)
n.
1. A philosophical system developed at Alexandria in the third century A.D. by Plotinus and his successors. It is based on Platonism with elements of mysticism and some Judaic and Christian concepts and posits a single source from which all existence emanates and with which an individual soul can be mystically united.
2. A revival of Neo-Platonism or a system derived from it, as in the Middle Ages.”
But, really, how is “Web 2.0″ meaningful when compared to something like “AJAX”? At least AJAX represents something reasonably concrete! Asyncrhonous Javascript and XML: a browser client sending XMLHttpRequests to a server backend capable of parsing and responding in kind asynchronously. As a code monkey turned manager turned code monkey, that’s something that I can wrap my brain around!
“Web 2.0″ to me is just hype!
Yes, there are richer web applications being developed these days than have been ever before. Reasonable DOM and CSS support in most major browsers, developers who have half a clue how to use them, and a few creative folks (frequently code monkeys themselves) who see the possibilities of the latter two are the real fuel behind this so-called “Web 2.0″. Who knows? Maybe the “Web 2.0″ meme is even attracting more venture cap?
Nevermind that Javascript is one of the least debuggable languages of the past ten years (no, I can’t use Venkman in my office as yet–tell it to the US Government to approve it for general use…).
Didn’t get the memo? We’re onto Web 2.1 now…. bugfix release.
Can’t we rename Web 2.0 to something other than standing for expensive conferences and parties?
I enjoy the notion of version iteration, but at the same time I have utter disdain for marketing hype. This is kind of antithetical to my job, but so be it. Anyhow….
Its funny that we’re terming something revolutionary when all it really is, is good software development practices (single points of interferance, documented API’s, extensible object oriented programming models, etc).
I’d glady tear down the Web 2.0 meme if it meant we can move away from the hype, the bubble madness and the Wiki-Fights, and move toward the utopian notion of open protocols, documented API’s and lack of walled gardens.
But who am I kidding? At heart, we’re all egotistical bastards typing furiously behind our LCD’s while the world marches on behind us oblivious to things like RESTian API’s, XML-RPC (sorry Dave) and parties at houses in the valley (sorry Mike).
Instead of trying to define, why don’t we just “do”? Instead of celebrating our own ingenuity of creating mad-scientists hybrids (reminds me of the Simpson’s episode with the pigeon-rat), lets create something useful. I try out so many “web 2.0″ services a week, and I’m still stuck with just two.
But… I might just be another geek, with big LCD’s, a very patient wife and a very full RSS reader.
Mike,
I think you are right.
At the end of the day, we’re all code monkeys, and if there is branding gimmick to help us flog software – we should embrace it wholeheartedly.
(Editing disabled while spellchecking)
Stop spell checkin
I’m not against an old-fashioned dustup amongst geeks but debating the legitimacy of Web 2.0 doesn’t seem to be a worthwhile use of our intellect. The semantics surrounding the coining of this phrase, who has the proper definition of it, and whether it exists or not means to me that we have lost sight of one of our important roles: developing ways to articulate the changes of web technology to those outside our circle.
Michael, it’s amazing how many comments this triggered regarding something that doesn’t exist..I just think that we reached a point like in the story “The Emperors New Clothes” – where the kids finally shout and point at the Naked Emporer – look he has no clothes….
I agree with some of the commenters that there’s no need to name the phenomenon. Let that happen later. Think about when historical eras are named — after the dust has settled. People in early nineteenth century England didn’t speak of living in the Regency Period; they just… lived — watched new gentlemen come into the neighborhood, tracked Napolean, bought a hat. Let the chroniclers see a pattern some years hence and label it. Anything else is artificial.
The new work will speak for itself without the crutch of a word or phrase to rally around to make the work sound next generation. If a product or service really is innovative — something that couldn’t have happened in the static web phase — it’ll become evident without assigning a caption to it.
Evan, Thanks for the definition. Yeah, for some reason it never ocurred to me to look the word up.
I think we can sum up Web 2.0 simply by paraphrasing what Reagan said many years ago:
“Are you better off now [online] than you were 4 years ago”
The answer should be an obvious yes – with more tools for sharing, creating content, publishing, than ever before. That in and of itself is why I’m excited about “Web 2.0″ or whatever we are calling it.
Revolution? Though tongue in cheek Mike, I’d have to agree in the sense that Thomas Kuhn meant. I’ve composed a ‘Web 2.0 Reading List’ to further explore that idea.
I don’t think any blogger/writer or whatever determines if the web 2.0 movement is alive/dead. Only the entrepenuers with the vision and will to make it happen make that call.
Don’t any of you self-appointed ‘write about it’ web 2.0 experts forget that
I think people are a little bit too difficult about the term “Web 2.0″. There are people saying that the current web are not “2.0″ and that the 2.0 must be something much more exciting.
Remember, 2.0 – it’s just a version number. There is web 2.0 and there will be web 3.0. Why not just consider the current web as web 2.0? or the next version of the web will never come (like the BETA mark appear everywhere on the web now and there will never be an official release)
Seems some folks love the drama and the attention!
You can’t rename stuff. They tried to do it with “podcasting”. As I used to say to the 7 year olds at the Marin Computer Center. “It’s just a variable. We could call it Fred if we wanted to”.
- Fred Gilchrist
It seems to me that this is about a semantical argument that may be, indeed, needless. We all know, whether we’re new to the medium or have been around for over ad decade — as I have — that the functionality has been enhanced, the usability has improved and there is more communitarianism to the Web than there was during the over-hyped “dot-com” days.
As Mr. Gilchrist states, what we call it is less important than how we attempt to help it evolve.
That was true ten years ago, too.
Cheers!