Comments for Phone-throwing kiwi explains

Phone-throwing kiwi explains

2005-12-21T20:47:23Z

After my phone-throwing incident earlier this week, I think I've calmed down enough now to do the equivalent of going on the Letterman show and saying sorry to anyone I offended. My friend Mike Arrington called me a traitor and others baled me up about what I wrote. My position hasn't changed, but I think I can do a better job of explaining myself. So let me try and clarify my position on Web 2.0.

1. I won't be entering into any more debates about what is or isn't Web 2.0. It's a dead issue, as far as I'm concerned.

2. I will try my very best to refrain from using buzzwords, including the term 'Web 2.0' itself.

3. I won't throw any more phones.

Here's my main reason why:

The term has become too overblown and nebulous - and is holding us all back. We're too focused on debating its meaning and fighting off the cynics, to make real progress with the actual technologies. But to be clear, I will continue to write about the technologies and impact of this current era of the Web. I am still a card-carrying member of the Web 2.0 Workgroup. I still run a ZDNet blog called Web 2.0 Explorer. I am still writing a book about designing networked applications. The main change, which I referred to in my original post, is that my blog Read/WriteWeb will become more focused on media-related Web technologies. Nothing else has changed, except I won't be playing buzzword bingo anymore.

This isn't a 'You're either for us or against us' scenario, as Mike put it. Or me leaving the Irish Mafia for the Italians, as Ben Barren put it. There are no black and white Bushisms in my world. This is a 'What will get me writing about the value of the Web again, rather than debating schmucks and semantics?' scenario. This is my declaration that the Web 2.0 debate is dead and it's time for us all to move on.

Capiche?

Comment from Ray CHOW on 2005-12-21

2005-12-22T00:19:08Z

thanks for the divertimento for the festive days, hopefully it‚Äôs the last refrain

Comment from Michael Arrington on 2005-12-21

2005-12-22T01:30:46Z

I'll take this as a complete reversal of your new position and assume you've come back to the side of goodness. :-)

Comment from Embracing intentional web initiative. on 2005-12-21

2005-12-22T01:52:15Z

Have you noticed that the focus in Web 2.0 is STILL on content creation and publication. What about the content consumer? The reaction to Web 2.0 (referred to as Hype 2.0), has not been very positive I think because as currently defined, web 2.0 is an evolution not a revolution.

Sure fancy ajax and web2.0 goodness makes browsing better but what has changed fundamentally for the consumer? Precious little.

A focus on developing systems that are primarily designed to help content consumers can be viewed as a revolution. We have decided to label the movement as the intentional web (At the heart of every content consumer are intentions. ie. why they are doing what they are doing). The reaction we have received from others has been very positive.

There is plenty of growth and innovations in progress but they need to be re-focused to be about an intentional web. This is what we are doing with Otavo and the intentional web initiative.

Comment from Mario on 2005-12-21

2005-12-22T03:29:06Z

I think you are getting it right. More useful objects, less onanism and philosophies.

Comment from Paul Montgomery on 2005-12-21

2005-12-22T04:33:55Z

Just be wary, Richard. If Mike Arrington kisses you on the mouth, run!

Comment from Mike on 2005-12-22

2005-12-22T23:44:12Z

I'm with you on this - the label it just that, a label.

We generally use labels as an something for peple to hang their hats on and give us a shortcut to a destination (in this case a particulr sort of Website/company).

The label in itself doesn't matter and we could've used anything as long as everyone got on board.

Once we start to stop on route and argue about what the shortcut means, where it's taking us then it's no longer a shortcut (it's the longest route) and it's lost its usefuless.

So, with ya!

Comment from cem oktersan on 2005-12-29

2005-12-30T00:11:56Z

Mike! Am sure I dont know this subject?

Comment from adam on 2005-12-31

2006-01-01T00:28:27Z

I can understand the point of not using this buzzword. Eventually it will come down to being a word only the "in crowd" can use, and anyone else who uses it will be labeled "sell outs" (such as phrases as "You aren't Web 2.0 enough!" and other such phrases).

I guess, as Web 2.0 and other buzzwords get used, eventually it will end up like the whole confusion of music genres and other sorts of classification systems which are in use nowadays.