[Air-l] how to pin down web 2.0

[Alex Halavais]

On 4/21/07, danah boyd <aoir.z3z at danah.org> wrote:
<snip>
> There is no doubt that the
> last year has involved numerous buyouts by large corporations but the
> vast majority of Web2.0 apps were built in total startup mode without
> an eye for business, with a focus on people like the creators, and
> with zero market research.  Blogger, LJ, Friendster, MySpace,
> Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Wikipedia, Flickr, Socialtext,
> Upcoming, ...  these are not big corporate projects, even if they've
> been bought or expanded beyond their britches.

While I would certainly agree that these projects were started,
generally, without heavy VC investment or a clear path to profit, it
is only within that business environment that the term "Web 2.0" has
come into heavy use. These are great examples precisely because none
of them started out calling themselves "Web 2.0" efforts--it is a
label that has been added afterward.

I'm not suggesting, as some have, that this is just another hype
cycle. Nonetheless, when I see the term used, it is almost always
within the context of investment and profit. Sure, there are
exceptions (Web 2.0 for education), but I think it was born of the
Wired-and-Fast-Company set, and continues to carry those connotations.

Again, my greatest concern is that it doesn't mean all that much,
while conflating far too much. Lane's post notwithstanding, Web 2.0
seems to be little more than a shortened way of saying something about
the Web as it is used today. In other words, Web 2.0 is the Web: why
proliferate terms in an area where we already have a surfeit?

--
//
// This email is
// [X] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded.
// [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing.
//
// Alexander C. Halavais
// Social Architect
// http://alex.halavais.net
//