"Web 2.0" is so Web 1.0(ish)

First of all, I did not attend the Web 2.0 conference.  And, now that it is over, I am sure plenty of people will be blogging about it this weekend.   

I have been looking at some of the definitions out there.  Tim has some great insights as to what the Web 2.0  (or web x.0) is all about.  I even like Steven Johnson's comparison with the Rain forests .

However, I really don't care for the term Web 2.0.  In fact I don't really care for any labeling of the web that involves version numbers.  It just sounds a bit too market oriented to me.  In fact it even seems to fly in the face of the Tim's "perpetual beta" pattern. 
Oh well, here are some of my observations of some of the important things occuring with the current state of the web.

• Information in the new ecosystem wants to be connected in as many ways as possible.
• Web 2.0 really seems to mean that the web is becoming webbier (or how about more webby).  The web came about to allow information to be connected.  Today, that connectivity tissue is growing more dense and in new ways.  Connectivity 2.0 would be a more accurate name (though still too market oriented).
• Labeling the web with a version number seems to be in contradiction to how we want to release software.  Constant change of services vs. product version numbers.  I predict that we will not have a web 3.0.  (Unless, of course their is money to be made). 
• Participation is definitely part of the future.  For information to be really connected, sites need to allow information to connect freely.  Users need to get fast value out of their contributions of information.  However, their information should aspire to higher goals of being connected or it will starve in the new ecosystem.
• AJAX can enable the connectivity tissue, but it can also hinder it.  Those sites that do not support connectivity will die regardless of how flashy they are. 
• The connectivity is enhanced when sites work well with each other.  Competition is out; Collaboration is in.  Or should we say "Connectivity is in".  But, hasn't it always been?
  
• People (consumers of information) will be the ultimate drivers of the connectivity driven ecosystem which information and web sites will have to survive. 

OK, this sounds a bit too Zenish, but I think it captures the essence for me.

Also I really do think AJAX can provide value, but those sites that are geared towards capturing the desktop on a web page will fade quickly.  The true value will come from sites that allow us to move through more information in a more focused way.  I think we are still exploring how these new sites will be built.  This is perfectly healthy.  I think the near term will have desktop applications working with the same connectivity tissue that the web does to enhance the overall experience.  However, I think this will be done because the ecosystem will demand it.  Long term, will be very interesting.

For the long term, we need to understand the ecosystem we are evolving that shapes the connectivity tissue of all things.

 

Comments

[Jose Canciani]

Don't be to hard with the 2.0 concept. It's just that, not a version #. It's the first known way to describe a set of technologies and a new paradigms seen in the last 2 years; and some people like it so it grew. Just like AJAX represents what XMLHttpRequest and javascript can do...
Anyway, thanks for the link to Tim's article, it's a nice permalink to show my friends who are not in the mood yet ;)

[[-FR6-]]

There's an error on your link to Tim page ("http://http//").

[Richard Cowin]

Thanks,
Links are fixed now.

I like ideas that cause us to think, but I am just a bit sensitive to market driven terms. A term or meme is valuable when it invokes a discussion that takes us forward or at least establishes the term as a meaningful part of our vocabulary. It seems that "Web 2.0" as a term still has not really achieved either of these. There is still a bit too much noise in the discussions and the term still has lots of ambiguity. Hopefully it will improve.