Comments on: Does Web 2.0 Need a New Term?

By: lightcap

lightcap — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 02:07:50 +0000

I vote down with Web 2.0 and let’s move to Web++

By: Ben Ramsey

Ben Ramsey — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 03:52:54 +0000

I find myself questioning exactly what it is we’re counting with a version number increment like that. “Web 2.0” originally (and to many still does) referred merely to the post-bubble days—the way the industry looked after the bubble burst circa 2001-2002. In software, version numbers count bug fixes or new features and (usually) clearly note a tangible release.

If we really want to apply version numbers to the progression of the Web, then we’d have to call the release of HTML and the first Web browser in 1990 “Web 1.0.” Perhaps the progression of browsers and the introduction of JavaScript in early 1996 would be “Web 2.0.” Perhaps the CSS recommendation that came out in December 1996 heralded in “Web 3.0” (or, at the least “2.5”). Then, in 1997, when Netscape further advanced JavaScript to work closely with CSS, thus creating what was known as DHTML, “Web 3.0” was born. And so on . . . But these all deal with presentation, not exactly the Web itself.

If you want to be very particular and talk about the Web itself, then you must talk about the progression of HTTP, the protocol that makes the Web what it is. The first version (referred to as HTTP/0.9) came out in 1990, with the release of the first Web server, httpd. This might be called “Web 1.0.” The second version (HTTP/1.0) came out in 1996. Is this “Web 2.0?” The third version (HTTP/1.1) came out in 1997 and was updated in 1999 (though the version number was not incremented). Were these “Web 3.0” and “4.0,” respectively?

My point is: other than marking the time after the industry bubble burst, what are we measuring with a version 2.0 or 2.1?

By: Alejandro

Alejandro — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 01:27:15 +0000

Well, I think “Web 2.1” is not a joke, it’s a good name for it.

By: Marco

Marco — Tue, 30 May 2006 09:58:41 +0000

The fact that ‘Web 2.0’ is trademarked is a sign of the fact that the whole damn internet is ruined by excessive commercialization. The fact that it’s a rather sympathetic company pulling this one right now actually underlines this very fact. O’Reilly has become succesful largely because of the community. Now they’re screwing the whole community over with this. I can’t even begin to express how lame I think this whole thing is. You’re asking what new term we should invite. Imagine a great new term would be born here. Before you can say “Great idea!” some other #$#% will have trademarked the new term. And so the whole thing will start over and over again…

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 29 May 2006 09:23:30 +0000

Web 2.0 beta seems somehow quite appropriate. O’Reilly and the rest of the metro-textual gang have a view of Web 2.0 that, while sounding quite interesting, smells like something that died last century. They’re waxing nostolgic, dreaming of the day when they can party like it’s 1999. Some people drop acid. Others, it seems, can get just as crazy dropping AJAX. But this salivating over technological potentials is nothing more than the hound dogs of market capitalism hunting down the next “big thing.” If we ignore them they’ll go away. (Not really, but it’s a nice thought.)

Like you and Jansch, I think the real thing going on is a “cultural” shift. There is a new, smarter focus on the web’s sociality factor—on its ability to get that “more than the sum of its parts” bonus that comes when you get things connected up in the right way. Every major advancement in human civilization has come from an increase in communication either by bringing people into closer proximity or by increasing the exchange of information across space and time.

The internet has “major revolution” written all over it. It brings people together in more ways and to greater degrees than anything in our history. To me, “Web 2.0” is a clearer indication that some very smart, influential designers and developers are waking up to the potential. They’re figuring out how to facilitate sociality and to harness the resulting power, feeding it back into the community that it’s come from. I wouldn’t call this Web 2.0 either, though. It’s more like Web 0.02 alpha. We’ve got a lot to learn and we haven’t seen anything, yet.

By: Tim Almond

Tim Almond — Sun, 28 May 2006 17:14:32 +0000

I’ve heard the term “social media” which I quite like. Or maybe something like “network media”?