Open Thread: Is Web 2.0 Dead? Answer to Win Our Web 2.0 Swag
You've heard the grumblings. Web 2.0 is declining, it's so last year....no wait, maybe Web 2.0 is just dead. But is it really? Or has it just become so ubiquitous that it no longer needs a special label anymore? Former Forrester analyst and Groundswell author Charlene Li predicted that social networking would become "like air" - that is, social networks would be everywhere. And now they are. So are blogs, wikis, video-sharing sites, and everything else that comprises "Web 2.0." But does that mean the era of Web 2.0 is over because it finally hit the mainstream?
We want to know your thoughts on the state of Web 2.0.
One brilliant commenter will win our swag bag from our recent trip to the Web 2.0 Expo in San Francisco - ironically an expo that seemed to be more about Enterprise 2.0 than it was about the consumer-oriented startups of days past. In fact, the most jam-packed sessions at Web 2.0 Expo were about harnessing the power of Web 2.0 for enterprise, for marketing, for advertising, etc. They weren't about you and me and our cool new web 2.0 applications built in the proverbial garage.
So is Web 2.0 declining? If so, why? It's the economy, right? That's the easy answer, of course. But is it possible that maybe Web 2.0 was already reaching its heyday when the big crash occurred? Was its number about to be up, anyway?
Or is the opposite true: now is Web 2.0's heyday. Now, everyone is on Facebook, everyone shares videos on YouTube, everyone looks up information on Wikipedia. Web 2.0 is everywhere - which, really, is the opposite of being dead.
What's Next?
But if you think Web 2.0 is over, then what comes next? Where's Web 3.0? The Semantic Web? That hasn't really come to pass yet. Or will Web 3.0 be the mobile web? That's my opinion, to be sure. The only real innovation that excites me these days is happening on mobile, not on the traditional web.
But this isn't about my opinion today or those of any of the ReadWriteWeb authors - today it's about yours. Share your thoughts and we'll pick our favorite commenter to win the goodie bag from the Expo filled with t-shirts, stickers, pens, CDs, notebooks, and other goodies from the conference. Just be sure you use a real email address so we can get in touch.
The Goodie Bag:
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
No, web2.0 isn't dead. Web 1.0 isn't dead either. There's plenty of sites out there that aren't Web2.0 running quite successfully.
The mobile web doesn't excite me so much, it's too expensive in the UK to do mobile web (£1 per Mb, and a 1Mb 'free' allowance per month. Gimmie a break!). If the mobile web was as cheap as the static web (I pay ~£25 a month for unlimited broadband, so on a per Mb basis it's very cheap!), then it might take off more.
For me, I think that we are going into Web 3.0 (Mobile and Semantic). Everyone wants "Real Time Web". That is, someone on the airplane that was hijacked and sending out a tweet as soon as they hit the ground. Now it's out there before the rest of the world.
Since everyone will have a phone / computer in their hands. That tweet will hit everyone instantly, not just the users on their computers.
Is web 2.0 dead? No, I am seeing people add me to their Facebook that don't even know where the power button is on their computers, so it's hitting everyone now. All ages and all niches are grasping Web 2.0 so it is not dead. It is alive and running.
We just need to keep looking to the future. Web 3.0 will redefine the way we find things on the 'net and where we start looking for the answers (system, phone, telepathy??).
Only sales and marketing people still maintain this ridiculous obsession with versioning. No professional person with a sincere interest in an any aspect of computing subscribes to such non-sense.
The only thing that's "dead" are they days when you could bullshit your way into a raise or the corner office by using buzzwords.
Frankly, I've never used the expression in any fashion. I may have used the so-called "tools" and "applications", but that's about it. Using the term is about as productive as saying "USB 2.0". Save your breath and just say "web".
As for the swag bag: 1. Leave the pens at the ATM counter becuase the bank's pens are all gone. 2. Drop the shirts off at the thrift shop for someone who needs a new shirt, and then 3. Save your money, postage, and the mail carrier's time, and dump the rest of the swag bag into your real-world trash bag, but 4. Recycle what you can.
Something can die only if was born. You are going to get multiple perspectives depending on who is doing the talking but I have felt that Web2.0 for the most part was just a Marketing moniker shrouding some of the technological components that already existed -- coined to gain publicity and new business.
So is Web2.0 going to die -- Naw, because it was never born.
Those who truly know the answer to this question will not share it here!
Web 2.0 isn't dead, it's just passed the explosive growth stage. Now that it's everywhere, where else can it go? It's mainstream. If it were dead, we'd already have phased in most of whatever the next newest, shiniest, fastest apps will be.
Sure, mobile web is next. But that comes hand in hand with both real-time (a la Twitter) and location-aware Web. Our social networks will be everyone with a cellphone at that subway station at that time.
I'm waiting for my glasses/contact lenses that stream updates straight to my eye and posts updates straight from my brain.
I don't think Web 2.0 or Social Media is declining or dead. In fact, I expect it to pickup speed, especiallly with mobile devices. Services such as twitter (text, images, and video) will drive and accelerate adoption. It will everywhere and thusly no longer need a name. It will simply be the "web" as we always knew it.
Web 2.0 isn't dead...the hype is dead. Facebook, Twitter, et al may be ubiquitous and "like air," but only in select areas and populations.
I work for public libraries and, I can assure you, there are many, many people who are not using social media, don't have mobile devices beyond a basic cell phone (and may never have more than that) and don't have broadband in their homes. In many large sections of my state, broadband isn't even an option for residents, with the exception of what they can get via the computers at their public libraries.
Web 2.0 applications have become an increasingly important form of communication. Unfortunately, it is a form that is nearly unreachable for many. It will not truly reach the mainstream until broadband internet and affordable computers do.
Web 2.0 is not dead, on the contrary, it's alive and kicking, just look at Facebook and Twitter and what they are doing to the world. What is dying is using the term "Web 2.0" as such. It has indeed become the web.
However I would like to believe that we are also on the verge of a new era of the internet, what I would term as the profiling era(the part of Google Epic Google never got right). In this era you do not find information, but the information finds you, and as you find new information you give it to everyone else, thus contributing to this cycle. Even Google seems somewhat irrelevant in this breaking news heaven(http://tinyurl.com/cjsyyw). But just a thought :)
Social media/Web 2.0 etc isn't dead, it's just gone into its chrysalis, like a butterfly. This happens with a lot of new technologies. Look at Web 1.0, it was all the rage, everyone wanted in, the 1990s were insane with growth .... then, we looked around. Wait a minute? Is anyone actually making money here? What's it good for? ... there was the "bubble" burst. Some stocks went reeling (I had plenty of Real Network at $100/share, ugh). And all was slow. Web was dead ... no, it wasn't. What came next was about really understanding it. Amazon.com, Overstock.com, iTunes, Hulu.com .... Wow, it's alive and well, emerged from its pupa as a butterfly.
Next, social media. Yay, we all want in! Everyone get a Facebook page! Check out Second Life! Get a Twitter feed!
People are starting to say, "wait a minute." How's this Twitter thing making any money? What am I supposed to do with a Facebook fan page?
We'll pull into our pupa and think a bit on this. Something amazing will emerge.
I don't know what it is. But it's coming.
In the mean time, I want my Wi-Max, unlimited wi-fi connectivity wherever, whenever.
And a jet pack. I want a jet pack, too.
I don't think Web 2.0 is going to die, it is evolving, improving... Web 3.0, Web squared... you know semantics, location-aware services and so on... It is also branching in different ways... It is growing
We're in web 2.5 currently. See my slide 6 here http://bit.ly/E9weC
Web: 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.0
Structure: Taxonomy, Tagging, Semantics, Intelligence
Interaction: Alone, Collaborative, Assist, Direct
Source: Specialized, Open, Autonomic, Adaptive
Rights: Copyright, Creative Commons, Public Domain, Free but hidden
Computing: Server, Grid, Cubic, Hypercubic
Web Response: Reload, Target Load, Cached Load, Adjust
Behavior: Pull, Push, Synchronous, Predictive
Take Gmail as an example. It's web response was 2.0 like in that it would only refresh selected parts of the page as necessary, it is now into the 3.0 territory with caching of frequent or expected next read emails. We'll know Gmail is approaching 4.0 like web response (as I've defined it) when it knows us well and predicts/suggests the next email we are most likely to read.
Let's take one more example of the web with respect to computing. First we interacted with a server (1.0), now with cloud computing we interact with a number of servers which may self manage and adjust. Web 3.0 will spread across to include all resources so that idle cycles are not wasted. Imagine simply a web cloud, your PC/laptop and cellphone. While on, they are always computing something, which may or may not be for you, and when you need something computed, you reach into this network of web computing, PC/laptops and cellphones to accomplish your task. This makes us more efficient with resources and seems more responsive. Web 4.0 is harder still to imagine but if we consider that computers are vastly more intelligent and have great skill at predicting our behavior, then we can realize how all this network of interconnected devices can pre-compute, predicting what we will need. Extreme example would be, waking up on Saturday and the cellphone has loaded all the routes/maps in it's memory of where it expects you will go, perhaps you didn't even know it yourself, but your phone did.
Must get back to creating my 3D web3.0 "WorldLearningTree" education website. Twitter me (harleyw)
Yes, Web 2.0 has become so ubiquitous that it no longer needs a special label anymore. After all, posting a comment on this blog is a Web 2.0 element. All old hat now...
All those people using Facebook, Twitter, et al et al - how many of them categorise their usage as web 2.0? We don't buy or use a category we buy and use effective services. Web 2.0 has broadened out to include almost everything that's actually just web - what will survive are the good products and services.
However it would be nice to eradicate the 2.0ing of everything. Got an old product - can't be bothered to improve its functionality? Slap 2.0 on the end and make it seem like something new. Oh and if you want to be ultra-innovative slap 3.0 on the end. No questions asked.
When the next 'trend' category comes along I expect web 2.0 to fade; what's been created won't, but it just won't use the tag.
I feel lame just saying "web 2.0".
Web 2.0 was never very well defined anyway. It was just a marketing label for a bunch of concepts and technologies that improved the web experience. Those concepts and technologies haven't gone anywhere, but all the mindless know-nothing copycats who are trying to crest the latest trend have shut up about it and are on to something else. Nobody talks about the electricity in the walls any more either, but everyone still uses it.
Web 2.0 never existed beyond an label we use to identify an era of the internet which is characterized by mass adoption. There is no version system for the internet, no get-info command we can execute to see what the current version is. There are no beta releases of the internet.
In the software world, a version is a release at a current state of time, frozen in history forever, like a painting. The metaphor of Web 2.0 doesn't match the meaning. To accurately depict the culture of the internet over time, I think something like BB (Before Blogging) and AT (After Twitter), makes much more sense.
We can always look back to see what the major shifts in the tides were. We can make reasonable guesses about the future.
The semantic web is more important to machine learning then it will be to human aspirations, so I doubt that it will leverage such a radical transformation that self-publishing did. However, sufficient machine learning will allow us, eventually, to parse the explosive fractal media tree of one bi
Web 2.0 Will Never Die
Or at least the concepts that epitomized Web 2.0 will never die. They will simply become a standard feature set in the next phase of the web's evolution.
What the term will be is hard to say... however, I'm fairly certain it won't be labeled "Web 3.0" or any variation of the "Web X.0" theme. The phrase "Web 2.0" will simply go down as a term to categorize this decade, similar to how music is labeled; 70's Rock, 80's Pop or 90's Grunge.
The Flying '57 Chevy
An interesting part of future prediction, is we always seem to dream in context of the present. Take for instance the futurist illustrations of the 1940's and 50's. All the cars "looked" like the contemporary design, except they were able to fly, go underwater, or drive themselves.
The reality on the other hand is similar, but not exactly the same. Dick Treacy had a watch phone... but, they never predicted the cell phone. Same concept, different interpretation.
Intelligence is Key
So, what will the future bring?
We can see some beginnings of the trends for the next decade... mainly in the areas of "Intelligent", "Semantic", or "Contextual" web applications and concepts.
That's not to say we're looking at AI applications that will talk to us...
But, applications that can either predict or automate things based on a specific context. Things like Geolocation and interoperability between services, but also external inputs like motion, temprature, or even sounds.
We've already seen it's beginings in things like OpenID, the iPhone, or Google's Lattitude.
The trick is not to think of a flying Prius.
Funny you should ask. I was thinking about this the other day. How no one seems to be using the actual word these days. I think it's to do with the recession. There's not that much money about for new ventures.
The web services that are still alive are consolidating, looking for ways to become profitable. I think this is a good thing. Web 2.0 is only the name of the buzz, what we said to frame what we were doing.
Web 2.0 should pass to make way for whatever comes next. Take email. It's a feature of the internet, not the web. How we use email and interface with it is a feature of the web, with web-mail. Emailing pictures to Posterous from my mobile and having them turn up on Facebook and Friendfeed takes it all to (what we call)web 2.0.
So, the question is, what features of web 2.0 will be a part of whatever comes next. What present day technology will take us to the next level.
I hope Microblogs will be there, and Friendfeed and Flickr and netbooks but I couldn't tell you how I'll be using them. I'm hoping for the semantic web although my understanding of this is vague. I think of it as "as-good-as-human filtering", which is what Twitter did and Friendeed does, complete with comments :)
I'm officially over using the term "Web 2.0" to describe web innovation. It's akin to still saying "we're gonna party like it's 1999."
I think Web 2.0 is dead, but it was dead not in 2009 or 2008, but quite earlier, at the end of 2006 or in 2007. The financial crisis only brought up the impotence of the Web 2.0. Possibly the the Twitter was last real new entry in this scene.
Since then I found no new and useful web applications. There are minor, improved competitors of the existing web based services (for example: although there are many older web storages, Dropbox is arguably a major improvement over them), but nothing new.
The frustrating momentum of this is that
-at first, there are quite many services that brought no improvements over the others, but money was proud onto them earlier
-at second, there are so much to improve that nobody deals with. For example, forums contain huge amount of information but it is nearly impossible to search them because of the huge amount of hidden info contained in the threads of the post, the lack of tagging of the posts, etc.
Posted by: kgyst.myopenid.com
|
April 21, 2009 11:10 AM
Sarah,
Great question. However, the answer could be varied depending on how people think what Web 2.0 is. I can see that the many commentators here have different opinions. The difference is indeed, however, all about another question that we thought we have resolved but never truly succeeded, i.e., what Web 2.0 really is. When people have different ideas on what Web 2.0 is, certainly they have varied answers to the question.
Now I would like to share my answer on the basis that Web 2.0 is a stage of Web evolution. That is, Web 2.0 represents a particular Web-evolutionary stage that can be identified by the blooming of social networking and RSS. If this is the condition, then I would say that Web 2.0 is passing (instead of using the term dying). This particular stage of Web 2.0 is passing. That is, as the other commentators have mentioned, the representative Web-2.0 concepts such as social networking and information syndication from multiple sites are no longer innovative. They have become common thoughts to nearly everybody. The age of Web 2.0 has already passed its peak and now it is the time of decaying.
What is going to happen after Web 2.0 then? There is no name for the next stage yet, though we may call it "Web 3.0" (many people, however, hate the name). But the name is not important. The critical point is that it is going to be another stage after Web 2.0 that is significantly different from Web 2.0, as if Web 2.0 has been different from the stage before Web 2.0 (Web 1.0?).
Is the next stage Semantic Web? Hesitatingly I would say so because to my opinion, Semantic Web is a status that represents that the Web becomes fairly automatic machine-understandable in contrast to a stage as Web 2.0 represents. Certainly the Web is moving towards Semantic Web. But it is different to say that Semantic Web is the next stage of the Web.
I would rather say that the next stage of the Web is something that is going to illustrate an innovative concept (similar to the concept "social networking") that prompts the virtual world of WWW. It will be a concept that is concrete and implementable and may immediately leads to a new form of Web business as the concept "social networking" has impacted our world. It is not something like "machine-understandable", which is vague, abstract, and indirect to immediate implementation. What is the concept? I have a few thoughts but they are immature and I am hesitate to share at this moment. But at least this is what I see towards the future of the Web.
The age of Web 2.0 is passing, while the concept of Web 2.0 will be ever-lasting.
Yihong
Sure we can all gripe about how bad a label or inaccurate web 2.0 was, but lets be honest, it helped give people outside the industry a sense of what was going on inside it. We all knew that it was a loose, imperfect, catch all, and that's O.K. What's next? I think what I like to call short-order-P2P services are going to catch more momentum, i.e. Etsy & Adhocnium. We'll be able to describe more accurately and fully products and services needing fewer intermediaries between producer and consumer.
Web 2.0 is not dead and I doubt it will be for a really long time. What is dead is the edginess of web 2.0. Web 2.0 is not only for the early adopters any more, it is for the masses. We think it is dead because we are busy talking about the next thing and web 2.0 is the current thing. Half the article is about web 3.0, see in an article titled "Is Web 2.0 Dead?" we are already looking to the next thing.
I agree web 3.0 (if we end up using that, which I hope we don't because the third movie in a trilogy usually sucks) will be about the mobile web.
It's not dead. It's pine-ing.
Anyone else think this article should've been a tweet?
2.0. So many blog posts have struggled to define exactly what this version number means. Content aggregation and ubiquitous access to information? Focus on social objects and social networking? Transparency and openness? Long-tail mentality and niche markets? Open source software and standards?
Whatever.
While the human urge to categorize and group information is strong, there are no versions of the Web. There are however continuous improvements, each one building on the last. And I think we can see one overarching trend that has shaped, and will continue to shape, the Web and we who use it: *Democratization*.
You see this trend in how people communicate - blogs and later microblogs have given everyone a platform to publish and interact. The barrier to entry continues to be lowered, and your ability to reach a large audience, as well as the specific group of people that you care a lot about, continues to increase.
What needs to happen, and therefore will, are two things (at least):
1. Bringing the Web to more people, more places and more contexts. The mobile Web will play a huge part in this, giving affordable Internet access to many, and giving _more_ Internet access to those who already have it.
2. Using the power of the crowd. Companies and services have already begun to tap into our collective wisdom. As it stands, most of these initiatives are crude, unintuitive and frankly, not that relevant to most people. The signs are here however - the fact that some have left RSS-readers behind in favor of Twitter is just one. With time, social recommendations will be perfected and become the norm. The Semantic Web will power social classification and create social navigation.
So, Web 3.0? Whatever. But the future of the Web is spelled "people".
Web 2.0 has been dead since someone first uttered the words "Web Two Point Ohh".
The social web is constantly evolving, and to slap a version number on it is just a way to take a snapshot of history. Sure, you could classify the Wordpress explosion as the start of 2.0. But advances in personal and social websites are far beyond that of even 3 years ago.
Don't wonder when Web 3.0 is coming, because it's already here and constantly moving forward, forever changing.
Trends in design change over time. That's why they're called "trends". But no one can call socializing a trend. We humans have been doing it since we've been on this planet. We will always be developing faster and more innovative ways to connect us with each other.
When you start developing for Web 2.0, you've already lost. You need to develop for tomorrow's web and beyond.
Like a hermit crab moving from shell to shell, we've have probably outgrown the term and are moving on to something bigger and better.
The shell isn't important.
Web 2.0 is as (un)dead as Internet!
bye
Andraz Tori
Charles Darwin said, "It is not the strongest species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but ones most responsive to change."
The Internet continues to grow and transform itself and the areas it impacts -- basically every person and industry that touches it. People have a need to categorize things, so let's just say the Web x.0 continues to move forward. Proliferation, mainstream adoption and complete integration into daily life. Whatever we call it, there's been nothing in history this disruptive to hit a global audience since the creation/accessibility of the PC.
Social networking. Software-as-a-Service. Mobile Internet. Cloud Computing. Enterprise x.0. Welcome to technology's evolution and revolution.
I don't think web 2.0 is dead, as much is it's a "living" thing that has already started growing in to what some may one day call web 3.0. That said, I also dislike the version numbers as it applies to the web. I see where web 2.0 was somewhat needed as things changed quite a bit for a while there, but as we move on to unexpected uses and applications of the web, I imagine we'll cease to use those version numbers. The real truth is Web 2.0 has become mainstream, so the early adopters (myself included) no longer feel that we're on to something quite so unique and special.
Saying Web 2.0 is dead is like saying 'buttons are dead.'
It's a framework, that's it.
Many of you want to label it as a 'system' or 'marketing concept' but it's neither.
It's simply a departure from one way to the next in design, continuity, usability and features.
SocialWeb has taken many ideas of 2.0 and has built upon it making sites much easier to navigate, content more consumable, and interaction more possible... not to mention the nifty visual appeal that many 2.0 ideas provide.
Until a different framework is cast, the "2.0" style will remain prevalent, as it should, because it provides the most benefit to site's users, still.
Web 2.0 isn’t dead…but what is it? Well, it’s “been there, done that.” In other words, it’s history…or rather it has history. Previously, the immense number of apps has made it practically impossible to gauge the sustainability, longevity and viability of any one application because such a huge proportion of the applications were under two years old and the overwhelming majority under four years old.
Now, I believe, we’re beginning to see what has happened to the browsers and search engines: a winnowing of tools. Some good, some bad, some unstable. Some finally are beginning to have reputations (or a history). There’s also a consolidation of some tools. Google and Yahoo are purchasing to fill in their holes.
Finally, the Web applications have become commonplace. As Oprah and President Obama are testaments, Twitter and Skype are now part of the everyday fabric of mainstream media and America. So, the unknowns about Web 2.0 are less unknown. Many more people are using the applications. As your own article describes, companies are leveraging these technologies for business and enterprise wide applications.
However, we still have a number of issues that have not shaken out. For example, many of the tools are teetering on an unsound or unspoken business model. Their sustainability is questionable. The stability of the tools is still questionable in many regards. Just because Oprah is tweeting doesn’t mean that Twitter is any more reliable.
Web 2.0 isn't dead. In the current climate, Internet companies just have to be more realistic.
Interestingly this time of the web is just starting, as some one commented it is now mass market, as we see growing uptake of over 55 onto social network sites, families reconnecting via face book, this week we read about the growth of facebook in Asia.
Web 2.0 (or what how anyone wishes to paraphrase it), is now growing to maturity, the next step is moving it to the TV screen, which I believe is still the number one medium for the masses. Coming from the UK we are seeing a push by the BBC to deliver its catch up content onto the big home screen.
When this hit’s mass market, we will see another jump in the use of Flicker and other picture sharing sites. Social networking will take on a new dimension, as we grow and interact with the programs we are watching.
Voice and Video calling will grow as we communicate two ways via our TV sets.
Once the bad times move on in the economy the mobile web will come and change it all again taking the web real-time. As it moves from the PC to a myriad of device (TV, Tablets, ebooks, digital paper, phones etc) and consumed mass market then it will be enhanced and evolve.
Dial-up internet died when broadband came along, enabling the web2.0 phrase, 3G/HSPA services are now delivering the mobility we crave. This is spawning the location, contextual services this will drive early semantic usage, but only when the masses are comfortable and we have truly broken free of the PC will the next wave take hold.
It is us spotter (the likes of you, me and the readers of blogs like this) that are bored and crave the next step on this adventure, we still love to see new cool apps, like the picture editing highlighted earlier in the week.
Web2.0 (or any incantation) has not died it has now moved and is being consumed and understood by more and more people. For us it is dead as we are the dreamers and doers of the adventure, we are eager to drive and deliver the next step on the webs journey. That is why we love the freedom and creativity the internet/web brings us.
Web 2.0 has always been exactly one thing: an idea. It was an idea to shift to a new way of doing things online, one that harnessed forces that were already available but as yet untapped. It was an idea to open things up and change business models. It was the idea to embrace changes and move faster. Today, we're surrounded by products of Web 2.0, but we're still looking for the innovation, the next big thing. That's why Web 2.0 is dead—the idea isn't interesting anymore; the innovation's been explored.
"Web 3.0", on the other hand, remains elusive. It might be mobile computing. It might be cloud computing. It might be the Semantic Web. What people are missing is the idea: what's the big change in how people will do things online? Once we know that, then Web 3.0 will become the revolutionizing force that Web 2.0 was.
I think that Web 2.0 was all about social networking and UGC, and I think UGC is still where it's at, but 2008/2009 marks the next level in User Generated Content, and thus I would say Web 2.1, (perhaps 2.5), it's still about the Social aspect and User Generated Content, but today it's about integrating those places together. On Facebook I can import in the video I uploaded to YouTube, and people can comment on it there without ever going to the YouTube page.
What's more, To write this comment, I signed into Facebook to identify myself to readwriteweb, and then I gave my friendfeed remote key so that rww can post my comment back to friendfeed. Friendfeed will then turn around and tweet my comment to twitter, which in turn will get picked up by a facebook app and posted back to Facebook as a status message, not to mention cross posted to my blog.
All of this is relatively new, this idea that sites are now working together whether they like it or not, isn't what the idea of web 2.0 was about. Web 2.0 was about sites that were no longer giving information to you but taking information from you, and it was a great evolution of the web, but now we are past that, now that I've given information to you, you are doing new things with that information by sharing it with others.
Web 2.0 is still here, but it's aging. The original Web 1.0 is sitting on the porch, aged and proud of his son Web 2.0, who is now looking down at his baby girl and trying to come up with the best name for her.
No - and this is a fair but also silly question in some ways. The Web 2.0 days of building a million new apps may be levelling off.
But, the Web 2.0 leaders from 2004, 2005, etc. are just taking off ... launch in '05/'06 ... material revenue in '07 ... growth in '08 ... real companies in '09.
Time to track the Web 2.0 success stories and see how they are doing. Exciting companies like Zoho, Freshbooks, Box.net, etc. etc. (and us EchoSign esignature) are really just taking off now. It takes time.
No, web 2.0 is not dead, its still good and running. All my devices in my house are running with web 2.0. Though I think a web 3.0 would be great, can you imagine the web 2.0 stuff combined with other new stuff?
No, la web 2.0 no está muerta, sigue buena y funcionando. Muchos de mis aparatos en mi casa funcionan con web 2.0. Aunque yo creo que un web 3.0 seria sin embargo genial. Puedes imaginarte todas las cosas del web 2.0 sumadas a otra cosas mejores para un mejor funcionamiento de internet?
First of all we'd have to nail down what web2.0 is exactly and get everyone to agree on it. What we'd end up with most probably, is a list of technologies that make the line between the internet and desktop software very blurry. And we would see that these technologies are used at various layers of almost every site we visit. Then we would get distracted talking about some other philosophical, political or religious junket. And we would have to be hammered drunk.
I tried to read through all of the comments above and hope I am not harping on the same issues as everyone else but the answer to your question dawned on me while I was walking to the train after work today.
The future of Web 2.0 belongs to those who can bring meaning to it. What makes sites succeed? What makes them plateau. What makes them fail? It's the meaning they provide to their users.
Myspace left the gate as the first platform to connect with people in a "flat world." You could connect with everyone, but who wants to be friends with everyone, virtual or real? Being a voyer to everyone, even to the girl from high school I never talked to then, didn't have any value to me. When I joined Facebook, it was open only to college students and provided a new way to connect with classmates but now that my parents can comment on my Saturday night drinking choices (My dad saying: I didn't raised your daughter to drink Miller Lite) it is slowly loosing it's value. And when I joined Twitter a couple years ago, it was another place to update your status and became a hyper-voyer tool to find out where I was eating dinner. It has since evolved into a forum for anyone to gather as many followers as they can without actually providing any real opportunity for two way conversation, claim they're an expert but providing no original content or sign up because Oprah told them to. Seriously where's the conversation, how many @replies does Oprah have time for?
All of these major platforms have lost their meaning for me because once again, I am just a number in the masses. The AdAge article about Aston hitting 1Mil followers was perfect, a few people preaching to the many.
Web 2.0's original success was based on the theory of a 2-way conversation. People are preached to everyday in ways they have no voice. The government, the media, the education system, the marketing world, etc but social media is suppose to be just that. Social. Mom-centric communities are successful because Moms visit them. I don't have children so they aren't relevant to me. But to those moms who login 3 or 4 times a day, it's meaningful.
Web 2.0 has only just begun but will evolve from large dinosaur-ish platforms for everyone into communities that are relevant to some. The ones who will succeed in the future are those that embrace the niches and realized that it was never about quantity but always been about quality. Think frequency and not penetration.
Semantic? Yes, but in the wake of all “Web 2.0” is the exponential growth of niche communities. Facebook, Myspace ect. were not designed, in the beginning, to please everyone and they do not fit the needs of many people. With their massive connectivity they will stay relevant however niche communities are growing every day. Everyone is looking for the next big hit but what is happening is not just one hit but millions of small ones coming out almost daily.
Another major issue that is causing a “lack of buzz” is Web 2.0 itself. Many people think of Web 2.0 is just social networking and connectivity but there is a whole other side of it; user generated content. The amount of information and content on the web has exploded. But with this massive expansion of content and information the amount of noise on the web has grown just as fast. Even though there are sites/content/information coming out that serve people needs better than what they are currently using they will have no idea they exist just because there is so much clutter to search through. Hence causing desensitization or simply people can only see the big social giants because there is too much fog to find what they really want in “web 2.0” causing people to become slightly disinterested.
Semantic? Yes, but the wake of “Web 2.0” is the exponential growth of niche communities. Facebook, Myspace ect. were not designed, in the beginning, to please everyone and they do not fit the needs of many people. With their massive connectivity they will stay relevant however niche communities are growing every day. Everyone is looking for the next big hit but what is happening is not just one hit but millions of small ones coming out almost daily.
Another major issue that is causing a “lack of buzz” is Web 2.0 itself. Many people think of Web 2.0 is just social networking and connectivity but there is a whole other side of it, user generated content. The amount of information and content on the web has exploded. But with this massive expansion of content and information the amount of noise on the web has grown just as fast. Even though there are sites/content/information coming out that serve people needs better than what they are currently using they will have no idea they exist just because there is so much clutter to search through. Hence causing desensitization or simply people can only pinpoint the big social giants because there is too much fog to find what they really want in “web 2.0”, intern causing people to become slightly disinterested.
A large majority of websites on the internet are still static and offer very little in the way of user interaction. Web 2.0 is a very real future goal for many companies who, due to this bad economy, currently lack the resources to further develop their websites. As the economy begins to recover, I think many businesses will focus more efforts into online networking and new media, which ultimately will transform these old websites into more user friendly Web 2.0 models.
Web 2.0 is far from dead. The latest and greatest killer application Twitter has single-handedly revitalized the machine. Deus ex machina, indeed. The spirit is finally alive again in Web 2.0.
The only problem with killer applications like Twitter is that they can be used for both good and evil. Celebrities like Demi Moore are actually receiving Tweets from suicidal fans making cries for help and changing their lives for the better.
Polarizing, egotistical people like Sean "Diddy" Combs, on the other hand, use their Twitter following to perpetuate racist stereotypes while flippantly talking about how he is doing it to make money and loving it.
For example, during last week's live Larry King Live telecast on CNN at 8:00 P.M. Central Standard Time, I actually Tweeted Larry King via @KingsThings, Diddy via @iamdiddy, and Oprah @Oprah, looking for a response to several serious allegations of fraud, slander, and libel, amongst other things.
Not a single Tweet was reciprocated. Ironically enough, Larry King called Twitter "the great equalizer [between the people and the establishment]; where celebrity doesn't matter."
I used to think this was the truth. Now I'm really beginning to wonder...
Just checked out Zahdoo.com - a hybrid of web 2.0 + semantic + private social networking product. Very unique concept.
I think only the term "Web 2.0" is dead and we need to come up with a new one. I predict that web usage will be become far more prevalent with no end in sight. We are only going more connected, not less, there is so much more we can innovate on the web.
Once upon a time there were a bunch of people who had nothing better to do with their time than comment on something that was inevitably going to take over the web. Get a life
People want to keep jobs or want jobs now. They don't care about Web X.0
If Web X.0 generates jobs then it is interesting.
1 2 Next