Web 2.0 is dead. Long live Web 2.0

TechCrunch tells us Web 2.0, at least as a buzz word, is dead, with Google Trends data suggesting that 2008 saw the term drop consistently and then precipitously as a matter of search interest.

I'm sure this is right, but I'm just as sure that it doesn't matter.

Tim O'Reilly, who coined the term "Web 2.0," has a knack for spotting trends and then moving on once they become less interesting. For him, that usually means once the rest of us have caught on and once the technology or trend in question is in monetization mode.

O'Reilly was also on the forefront of spotting and nurturing the open-source movement. When it went mainstream (boy, has it gone mainstream) and became something to harvest financially rather than to define and structure intellectually, O'Reilly started looking for the next big trend--one that, intriguingly, learned much from the principles of open source.

That "something" was Web 2.0.

For several years, O'Reilly was the prophet of the Web 2.0 revolution. But now that Web 2.0 has to figure out how to pay for itself, not simply change the way we interact online, I suspect O'Reilly is moving on to other things like green energy.

This, perhaps more than anything else, will signal that it's time for Wall Street and the money changers to delve into Web 2.0 in earnest. If O'Reilly moves on to tackle another big trend, it means he, at least, believes enough definition has been laid for Web 2.0 to serve as signposts to financial profiteering from it.

The real money in open source is being made now, years after it started to significantly disrupt the cozy software ecosystem. In similar ways, now that interest in Web 2.0 is dying down as a marketing buzzword, interest in its principles as a corporate revenue-generation strategy will most assuredly rise.

Follow me on Twitter at mjasay.

[Daniel_Tunkelang]

The annoying thing about buzzwords is not just their overuse, but the way they make people lazy to understand their meaning.

With open source, few people even think about the distinct aspects of the , such as the ability to read and modify the source code vs. being able to use the software for free.

Web 2.0 is far worse--it's practically a Rorschach test for marketers. Tim O'Reilly hardly helped with statements like these: "Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the Internet as a platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform."

Nonetheless, I think there is substance to this "2.0" stuff, and I tried to capture it in a post a few months ago:
http://thenoisychannel.com/2008/10/14/20-means-give-to-get/

[Dylan_Wisor]

You don't think people understand the difference between freeware and open-source software? Really?

[pentest]

It has absolutely no technical meaning.

You can't profit from something that doesn't exist.

[knowles2]

I think most con artist would disagree with you their.

Not that I am say Tim O'Reilly a con artist.

[manualfunky]

i'd like to put forward the term "web 3.0"

its an original and i would lke recognition and $$ should it ever become a common term

i just coined it myself, just popped into my head...

[flhu]

You might be waaay ahead of yourself. Maybe we should start talking about 2.0.1 first.

[combatwombat_nz]

@manualfunky:
I'm going to up the ante with Web 7... then I can collect royalties from Micro$oft who are using my IP...mwahahahahaha

[tehrani625]

I would like to replace SMS with "tweet". So a conversation could start with "Did you get that tweet?". Now you may already do this but it will become much more common when we replace SMS with twitter.

@compatwombat_nz Your point is mute, considering that everything is free.

[WeCanDoBIZ]

Let's be clear, "Web 2.0" is disappearing as a term because the ost obvious manifestations of it, like Facebook and Twitter, are now mainstream and in everyday language. No one needs to use a geeky term to refer to it, because now Joe Public knows what it means. Those continuing to use it are just alienating themselves from the very people we've always wished would wise up to what we are talking about.

Ian Hendry
CEO, WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz

[aintnorainbowdorothy]

I've always disliked the term 'Web 2.0' inasmuch as the web has moved from rudimentary use, i.e. the original ARPANET developed by DARPA to the web we use today. Web 2.0 is simply a term for streaming media and the like. And that is hardly anything new. Flash, Silverlight and all the other things that go into streaming media are definitely not Web 2.0. Instead we have moved way beyond that to what could possibly be Web 7.0 or 9.0 or something one wants to call it. When Microsoft came out with 3.0 and then NT, those could have been 2.0 and then 3,0. Netscape and IE were possibly 4.0. And the count continues. OSX might have been 5.0 with Vista (definitely a good OS), much maligned by people who are either fanpeople of OSX or XP. 6.0 ajd 7.0. Those who have probably tried only the Home Starter or Basic and not the better editions, Home Premium and Ultimate. Sure they hog resources, but show me any improvement to any OS, including OSX in all it's iterations (OSX 10.1 to the coming sometime Snow Leopard). Or Open Source, in all it's different flavors. Tim O'Reilly may like coining terms but he needs to change what he says and actually go to the real things.