Web 2.0 is a bunch of crap

No, not the stuff arguably associated with it, just the term.

Look, people, the Internet is not some product evolving in big, whole-numbered discrete steps. The Web isn’t like the release of Microsoft Office 10, followed by version 11.

No… technologies evolve and products improve bit by bit, formerly little-used tools get a new lease on life or are used in more creative ways, and so on. It’s not like one day we wake up and *vavoom* there’s a new Web online! And yes, I gather that the whole Web 2.0 thing is referring to “revolutionary” components, applications, but still I say, bah humbug. I love Gmail as much as the next guy, I think Meebo is pretty nifty… but sheesh… all this still doesn’t, IMHO, warrant the whole “2.0” gushing.

I’m not surprised that e-business mags are trumpeting “Web 2.0.” But I’m embarrassed that my fellow geeks are bloggily embracing it, too.

Please, for the love of 1’s and 0’s, can we go just one day without blabbing on about how some burgeoning transformation is going to create lasting peace, boost the world dotconomy, and help geeks get laid? I mean, maybe the first two, fine, but the third…? Only in Silicon Valley. Ah, only in Silicon Valley…






7 responses to “Web 2.0 is a bunch of crap”

  1. Mark Jen Avatar

    Hmm… is GMail really a Web 2.0 application? There’s no content syndication and no web services.

    From Wikipedia: “The site should not act as a ‘walled garden’ – it should be easy to get data in and out of the system” and “Users should own their own data on the site”. Doesn’t exactly sound like GMail to me :-p

  2. Adam Avatar

    Ah, I shoulda wikipedia’d ;-).

    But return-nitpicking for a moment…

    Gmail has RSS feeds, which I’d assume for this purpose is the same as content syndication. 

    One can get data out via POP, but indeed, it’s not very easy… nor is it possible to get data out.

    Summary:  Not very bright of me to use Gmail as a Web 2.0 example!  But I stand by my general argument that the whole “Web 2.0” term is vaccuous hype (see http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2005/08/04/Web-2.0 from someone a lot smarter and high ranking than I am 😉

  3. J. Avatar

    Curious wonder…is Mark related to Sandy?  She was my CS106a TA.

  4. Mark Jen Avatar

    Hi J, As far as we know, Sandy and I aren’t related, but we do share an uncommon last name 🙂

    Maybe, we’re distant cousins…

  5. James MacAonghus Avatar

    That’s too easy a criticism to make of web 2.0 and it has been made loads of times before. The greater value is in accepting that all the intelligent people know the problem, and use it as a convenient shortcut, not in just complaining about it.

  6. mlota Avatar

    Finally, I’ve found someone who thinks the same as me. “Web 2.0” is without a shadow of a doubt the marketing departments dream come true. It’s false. People have been using web 2.0 techniques for years, why the sudden realisation?

  7. Mike Avatar

    Web 2.0 is much spoken about nowadays.

What do you think?