

Put "Web 2.0" Out to Pasture - VonGuard
http://www.sdtimes.com/blog/post/2009/04/06/Put-Web-20-Out-to-Pasture.aspx
The term is now meaningless. At least increment it, or just forget the term and conferences all together.
======
catone
I'm kind of sick of the "kill Web 2.0" meme... it's easily as tired as the
term Web 2.0.

Web 2.0 isn't a version. For O'Reilly it's a marketing term used to sell
books, blogs, magazines, and conferences. For everyone else who took part in
the infamous definition discussions it was a helpful prompt for talking about
where the web is and where it's going. Really, though, Web 2.0 just signifies
whatever we're doing with the web right now that is exciting and cool and
different from how we used the web 5, 10 or 15 years ago.

Here's an excerpt from a piece I wrote at ReadWriteWeb last year entitled
"There is No Web 3.0, There is No Web 2.0 - There is Just the Web" ...

"[The] versioning of the web is silly. Web 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0 is all really just
whatever cool new thing we're using the web to accomplish /right now/.

...

Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 -- they don't really exist. They're just arbitrary numbers
assigned to something that doesn't really have versions. But the discussion
that those terms have prompted have been helpful, I think, in figuring out
where the web is going and how we're going to get there; and that's what is
important."

Link:
[http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/there_is_no_web_30_ther...](http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/there_is_no_web_30_there_is_no_web_20.php)

So let's dispense with the "Web 2.0 is over, onto the next version!" meme and
instead just focus on what the web is, what we can do with it now, and where
we can take it in the future. </rant>

~~~
Brushfire
Clearly, you havent heard about web 4.0 -- with extra rounded buttons, and
fonts starting at 48px. We're talking about community driven concepts here,
that synergizes our enterprise collaboration dynamics, and causes a dramatic
paradigm shift of long tail immersion.

All kidding aside, I'm totally with you.

I'm also amused when people talk about 'Mobile Web'. There is no such thing.

------
josefresco
"Version 2.1 will probably look the way Google Chrome expects: individual apps
are no-longer desktop bound, and we all live in something like Google Docs and
Gmail"

If this is the future count me out. Not because I have any issues with online
apps or Google (ok I do have issues with Goog), mostly because it sounds
awfully fucking boring.

Ooo my same applications only .... online! Awesome, now what.

~~~
axod
>> "Ooo my same applications only .... online! Awesome, now what."

Ok here's a few reasons why this really is awesome for most people.

    
    
      * OK, so I don't have to download anything, don't need to worry about spyware/virii/etc
      * Cool. I can access my applications from my PC, my friends, my iPhone, a net cafe, the library.
      * Ooops, my hard disk died. Oh well, all my data is 'safe'.
      * Ooops, my hard disk died. At least I don't have to download and install tons of applications.
    

Not to mention the fact that those apps instantly get easy access to 'auto-
update' 'share' 'collaborate' etc - they're easy to 'multi-userfy'

Desktop software will always have a place, just like not _everyone_ uses
webmail. But for the majority, webmail is just way easier for them.

