Last week I attended the Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco. This is the third year running I've attended - I went to the 2005 Web 2.0 Conference in October 2005, the 2006 Web 2.0 Summit in November 2006 (it was re-named the "Summit" at that point and took on a more business focus), the 2007 Web 2.0 Expo in April 2007 (more developer focused), and now the 2007 Web 2.0 Summit. Each time I've written a round-up (see links above), a high level look at how the events panned out.
For some reason, the 2007 Web 2.0 Summit has been harder for me to analyze than the previous 3 events. I think it's partly because I spent less time this year in the sessions and workshops - this time I roamed around the conference center and did lots of meetings. But also it was difficult to identify an over-riding theme to this conference.
To quickly re-cap my thoughts on the previous conferences:
So there has been a progression over the past couple of years:
And now we come to the 2007 Web 2.0 Summit -- but this one is harder to to define. For a start, the cutting edge was even further away from the Summit than it was in 2006. The main themes that I picked up during this conference were:
Two interesting trends to be sure, but not the cutting edge of web technology.
The hallways were where the action was, as usual
However, one innovative new product type did make an appearance later in the conference: semantic apps. Twine announced itself during the Summit, and we saw on stage two startups that have been in varying stages of stealth for the past year or so: Freeweb and Powerset. So it was good to see semantic apps 'bubbling up' (obligatory use of the word 'bubble', just for Josh Kopelman).
Something was missing in the Web 2.0 Summit in 2007. The excitement factor wasn't quite there. Content-wise, discussing Facebook's valuation and the latest AT&T regulations weren't very interesting from a technology perspective. Marc Canter did his best to liven things up, asking both Facebook and MySpace's leaders to open up their social network properties. But even Marc couldn't elicit meaningful responses from either Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg (who frankly looked like a young deer trapped in headlights) or the Batman and Robin big media duo of Rupert Murdoch and Chris DeWolfe.
As for the social activity at the Web 2.0 Summit, it too didn't quite register on the excitement meter. Last year we got Lou Reed, somewhat grizzled at how fate (or his AOL kung-fu buddy Jonathan Miller) had reduced him to performing to rich Internet folks. OK, Lou sold out - but it was awesome! This year however there was no Jonathan Miller to save the day. Indeed the main party wasn't even hosted by Web 2.0 Summit. It was by MySpace and it basically threw together two different worlds: awkward looking geeks mixing with far-too-hip media people.
Who let these geeks in? At the MySpace party, from left to right: Prashant Agarwal, Richard MacManus, Sean Ammirati
After much earnest reflection, I think this year's Web 2.0 Summit can be described as: Steady As She Goes. Nothing much had changed from last year's Summit - even Tim O'Reilly's attire of brown trousers/jacket and scratchy beard was the same as last year. No, this Web 2.0 thing is here to stay for a couple more years yet - Mary Meeker's data and charts still show web 2.0 in the black, John Battelle's questions are still incisive, Tim O'Reilly is still at the top of his analytical game (web 2.0 and financial markets was his new theme this year). It's steady as she goes.
There was a hint of disruption with the Semantic Apps startups, muscling onto the scene with their talk of "web 3.0". But in the end, it wasn't enough to usurp the defining question of this conference: when will Facebook "bring in a grown-up"? (which Battelle asked Zuckerberg at the end of their session).
Hey, perhaps next year we can get Jack White and The Raconteurs to perform at the event?
Photos: Brian Solis
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: 2007 Web 2.0 Summit Review: How the Web 2.0 Conference Has Evolved Over 2 Years.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1725
Last week's Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco was pretty intense, all things considered. It's therefore lucky that this week is the Half Term school holiday in this particular corner of the UK, and peppered with days off to... Read More
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
So what will the conference look like next year? Any predictions?
Posted by: jon burg | October 23, 2007 7:58 AMVery good characterization of this year's Web 2.0 summit!
Posted by: Gottfried Vossen | October 23, 2007 8:54 AMHI Richard,
I have not attended this conference. But I have watched many reports and carefully watched many video talks at this conferences. By following your summarization, I think this conference shows that Web 2.0 is starting to flourish.
As you said, this Web 2.0 is lack of a focused theme comparing to the previous ones. But isn't the lack of a theme itself also a theme? If we think of this phenomenon from another angle, it exactly means that Web 2.0 is starting to prevail in all directions. This is the theme of this Web 2.0 summit.
Here are some observations I make based on my own theory of web evolution (which you may have known from Thinking Space).
1. This Web 2.0 summit delivers a strong signal that the web evolution has been on the stage of rapid quantitative accumulation of Web-2.0 resources. The core technologies of Web 2.0 has been matured. The rest of the work is how to maximize the usage of these technologies. This Web 2.0 summit shows the interest of manipulating Web 2.0 from all directions, including both traditional big companies such as Microsoft and numerous small startups.
2. The preparation of transition to Web 3.0 has started. I mean it is a preparation but not the transition itself because at present online Web-2.0 resources are still too few on both its quantity and diversity to really trigger the next transition. A qualitative transition cannot happen from nowhere. Any qualitative transition must be upon a sufficient quantitative accumulation on the previous stage; but we are not there yet. This is why Twine can only still be a Web-2.0 or Web-2.5 product but not a true Web-3.0 product. It is an early-born baby and the entire environment has not been prepared for the healthy growth of this baby. But Twine is a signal that Web 3.0 is ahead.
3. We need more Web-2.0 companies. Some people may argue that it's the time to start a Web-3.0 company rather than a Web-2.0 company. But no Web-3.0 companies can exist when the world of Web 2.0 has not been flourishing yet. This is thus the dilemma. Web 2.0 stands on the flourishing world of Web 1.0. (It was so flourishing that it causes a bubble.) Similarly, Web 3.0 can only stand on the flourishing world of Web 2.0, and there is no other way. It may mean that Web-2.0 bubble is not only unavoidable, but also necessary. In order to survive from this coming bubble, any ambitious Web-2.0 company must prepare its own shift from Web 2.0 to web 3.0 when at present it still focuses on producing Web-2.0 products.
These are some brief comments after reading your summary. I may organize these thoughts and produce a more formal post at Thinking Space a little bit later. But this conference is indeed a great event and Read/WriteWeb has done terrific jobs to report it. Thank you.
-- Yihong
Posted by: Yihong Ding | October 23, 2007 10:50 AMWow - is it really mainstream already? I can't wait to tell my mom. I don't think she's heard of it yet. ;)
Posted by: Tara Kelly | October 24, 2007 8:48 AMI think you captured the atmosphere of the conference very well. But I'm not sure that it says as much about the state of the Internet as it does about the state of the O'Reilly Summit. The Web 2.0 Summit is now probably the most prestigious mass event in Silicon Valley, and so it attracts as speakers the CEOs of big companies like AT&T.
It's interesting to hear from those people, but they're very cautious speakers, and do not make major announcements at industry shows. The general rule is: the more prominent the speakers, the blander the content.
Posted by: Michael Mace | October 25, 2007 5:45 PMI completely agree with Yihong about the lack of Web 2.0 companies. And though you found this years summit "bland" and don't seem to think Facebook or Myspace have made any huge leaps in technological advances - you have pointed out what is most notable about Web 2.0 - online connectivity.
Businesses though, just aren't keeping up with this communicative relationship that consumers are ready to be a part of ( http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=513&doc_id=136486 ). And I agree with the argument made (in the link) that those that don't make this step will be left in the dust.
Posted by: Elisa | October 28, 2007 11:50 PM