Comments for Cat eats pigeons: why Web 2.0 has jumped the shark

Cat eats pigeons: why Web 2.0 has jumped the shark

2005-12-19T19:36:57Z

Well my declaration that Web 2.0 is dead set the cat amongst the pigeons. Let me give a bit of background...

I've been thinking for a while now about re-focusing Read/WriteWeb onto more media-related Web technologies. Many of the things I'm interested in are being done by Yahoo!, which by now is generally recognized as a media company. Web-based media assignments make up the bulk of my freelance work, for various companies in Silicon Valley. So for the sake of my career it makes sense to re-focus Read/WriteWeb onto Web media.

So that's one factor. Another is of course the hype and cynicism around the term 'Web 2.0'. I've been writing about Web 2.0 for well over a year now, much longer than any other blog out there that proclaims itself to be about Web 2.0. I thoroughly enjoyed it, up till about a month after the Web 2.0 Conference in 2005. But in the last couple of months, the enjoyment has gone. Part of the reason is the number of cowboys and critics that have entered the 'discussions'. Most of the attraction of blogging for me is in having great discussions with other people passionate about the Web. What I've been dealing with lately is responding to, or (when I'm in a more sensible mood) filtering out, people who most certainly AREN'T passionate about the Web. It's literally draining the energy out of me and making blogging an unpleasant experience. I never thought I would say that. So I knew I had to change something.

But why turn my back on Web 2.0? Well let me just clarify that what I'm turning my back on is the actual term 'Web 2.0' - not the technologies and definitely not the social changes we're seeing in this current era of the Web. Personally I want to focus back on the Web technologies, rather than arguing about what is or isn't 'Web 2.0'. I love the Web and always will (overly sensitive and heart-on-sleeve person that I am). But it's the core concepts of the Web that I'm interested in and what I want to focus on. If you want to continue to attack or defend 'Web 2.0', then be my guest. Just don't expect me to participate in that any more.

I want to respond to a few people that I respect. I've gotten to know a lot of great people over the past year and Mike Arrington has been one of them. He's a bit annoyed by my outburst, going so far as to invoke Kyle from Southpark. Mike wrote:

"Look at Flickr. Look at Delicious. Look at Riya. And 1,000 more. My God, how dare you tell me that someting amazing and new, completely new, hasn’t happened on the web. Web 2.0 isn’t about wikipedia definitions and neatly wrapped bundles of functionality that non-innovators can use to understand what’s going on. It’s about the web coming out of a nuclear winter and bursting forth in a fit of chaotic growth. It’s about hope and love and getting ridiculously wealthy by ignoring the wisdom of those around you who say “your idea, it sucks”.

Don’t be so eager to tear down this castle in the sky. It may not be so easy to build it yet again.

:-)"

The mistake I've made over the past year is getting too obsessed by definitions - the Wikipedia one and others. Mike never fell into that trap and so he is 100% correct to say that it isn't about definitions. We are in a new era of excitement about the Web and that is, I guess, as close to anything the definition of Web 2.0. That's fine, but I just don't want to blog about the excitement (or otherwise) of this thing called 'Web 2.0' anymore. That's all I'm saying. It's time for me to get back to writing about what I love about the Web.

I've always respected Dave Winer and just lately I've had to deal with some of the same kind of vicious vilification he's had to endure for years (it's probably been ten times as worse for Dave). Here's what he wrote in response to Russel Shaw's piece:

"In a sense people are right when they say it's another bubble. It's dishonest like the bubble was. Yet the technologies they're hyping are honest."

I love that last sentence: "Yet the technologies they're hyping are honest." Exactly, that's what it's all about. Thank you Dave.

Dion Hinchcliffe also wrote an interesting post in response to mine. He wrote:

"Unfortunately, folks like Russell Shaw (author of the ZDNet article mentioned above), seem to think that Web 2.0 is an attempt to describe something enitrely new. It doesn't. As Tim O'Reilly made clear in his seminal description of Web 2.0 earlier this year, it represents the ideas that actually worked in the first generation of the Web. The arguments that folks like Shaw use, like saying that Web 2.0 is too big an umbrella, and represents unrelated concepts, and is nothing new, shows how uninformed even the experts are. And also represents a poor job by the folks that discuss it publicly (though the Web 2.0 Workgroup is certainly trying.) Unfortunately, all of this creates a distorted and incomplete view that is then propogated by the mainstream press, making it worse."

I think this actually reinforces my point: Web 2.0 as an umbrella term has become too problematic a term. It's simply not worth arguing about any more, in my view. Let's just get back to making and using great Web software.

Don't get me wrong. Web 2.0 was great while it lasted - and it still is a great name for a conference. But it's time for me personally to move on and focus on the real value in the Web today. Which for me means leaving behind the Wikipedia definition of Web 2.0 and all the peripheral garbage from cowboys and critics.

To the people wondering what this means to the Web 2.0 Workgroup or my ZDNet blog Web 2.0 Explorer. As I commented in the last post, those will continue. It doesn't bother me that they're called Web 2.0 Workgroup and Explorer. It's just the whole debacle around defining Web 2.0, all the buzzwords, all the cynicism, the personal attacks, etc - that I've had enough of.

I'll continue to explore Web technology, nothing has changed or will change in that respect. Here's to 2006!

Comment from Jennifer Myronuk on 2005-12-19

2005-12-19T19:56:13Z

(Cross post from CrunchNotes) To chime in: Web 2.0 is not a pure marketing term, rather a "status" term, a benchmarking phrase to help a new community of users mesh (or mashup) with the pioneers of the last dot.boom. Sure, one can always argue against the merits of symbolism over substance -- but in the case of Web 2.0, there is clear evidence that the substance documented (eg: companies, concepts, capital) benefits from a symbolic name--Web 2.0, 3.0, X, etc. Sure, the problem of placing the symbol ahead of substance is one to be on the look out for, but I think this discussion is a tad bit premature given the current upswing of web innovation. What's in a name? Yes, Web 2.0 is only a name--but it's also a tag that helps us redefine our perception of web interactivity and connectivity--the LiveWeb as Doc Searles notes--and linguistics aside, there is a real community brewing here, one that I'm excited to be a part of, whether it's called Web 2.0 or Webalicious 7.5...

Comment from Phil Leif on 2005-12-19

2005-12-19T20:47:39Z

I, for one, am sad to see you make this change. Read/Write web‚Äôs enthusiasm, even more than the other Web 2.0 blogs, was what inspired me to take up entrepreneurship.

As it is, I‚Äôve persevered against the odds, and over the last six months built a company that exceeded my goals and expectations. I‚Äôve been watching this pessimism build up over the months, and it‚Äôs ironic that you make this decision when some very exciting and validating things are happening for myself and others in the community.

Not that I‚Äôm faulting you. I‚Äôm sympathetic that a great, constructive analyst and pundit luke yourself has borne the brunt of all this disaffected Gen X cynicism, jaded dotcommer angst, and bullshit sniping from industry incumbents. It sucks, frankly. It‚Äôs intellectually lazy, and is exactly what‚Äôs wrong with the blogosphere as a whole.

I, Meebo, and everyone else will keep on building the future. It‚Äôs just a shame that had I come on to the scene now instead of six months ago I wouldn‚Äôt have had the implicit support, emerging conceptual framework, or any of the other graces of "Web 2.0".

Comment from Mike Rundle on 2005-12-19

2005-12-19T20:54:43Z

Richard, my friend, I'm right behind you. I've always felt that the moniker "web 2.0" was a bit pretentious, so the faster people stop labeling every new technology and company out now as "web 2.0" the faster we can get back to building great, user-centric applications instead of just waving the Ruby on Rails or AJAX flags around like users really care.

Comment from Jason Salas on 2005-12-19

2005-12-19T23:38:37Z

Hi Richard,

Great discussion. My take on this is that Web 2.0 (the term) is very much alive, due to the interest, growing interest from mainstream media and support with the small fortune of information out there. I see this largely the result of the collective concepts within Web 2.0 being that which marketing people finally "get". The web services model, circa 2001, was way too technical and complex for the non-programmer to get or even explain (even mighty Microsoft has trouble using a universal definition of exactly what SOAP-based web services were). Web 2.0 in concept is something marketing folks latched onto and are now propagating with great passion. So in this light, it's thriving.

Conversely, I think Web 2.0 (the practice) is shunned by technical folks who are insulted at the labeling of concepts, platforms, methodologies and other things that have been in existence and are now grouped under a single title.

Comment from Chris Heuer on 2005-12-20

2005-12-20T09:11:43Z

Almost wrote a post earlier on the 'new new media' idea, but even that is tired isn't it? The media technology angle is the right one - particularly the participatory or social media approach. It also relegates the also ran ideas that are being rehashed and many of the other web based applications that are emerging to their rightful places, as new tools that still must find a base of people who can benefit from using them. Perhaps that distinction is the most poignant of all...

Comment from martin on 2005-12-20

2005-12-20T10:30:40Z

i assume this will be an opera death full of pathos: the hero (but who exactly?) sinking to earth, but again and again starting to sing ...

the problem i see: well defined or not, a semantical strange attractor is needed to let the energies flow. a basic Web 2.0 (oops) lesson by the way. how should we tag the posts in the future?

Comment from Hooman Radfar on 2005-12-20

2005-12-20T17:01:38Z

Richard, I agree to some extent. There are too many people that have jumped on the bandwagon that have not only have made no contribution to meaningful development, but also bring a negative attitude to the table. As a result, the term Web 2.0 has become extremely loaded. These are the people that constantly bicker over terms, label this as a bubble, and essentially are waiting to say "I told you so" during every hiccup that the movement experiences. I believe that if someone is not offering constructive commentary, or building next generation software/services, then they should just leave the folks that are trying to make a difference in peace. Does that mean that you cannot disagree? No. In fact, I encourage them to voice concerns. Just do it constructively. Offer suggestions, or advice. Tell us how to make things better. We are not doing this for our health. But if all you want to do is bash others--then the Web 2.0 community is not for you. If you do not like what folks are doing by all means do not invest, do not build it, and do not use the services. Sit on the sidelines and then enjoy the fruits of our labor after it has become mature enough for you to understand. In short, Richard, please keep blogging. Call it Web 2.0, Read/Write Web, On-Demand Computing, or global Service-Oriented Architecture. Call it whatever your heart desires. It is just semantics. Regardless of what happens, a term will be chosen and their will be controversy. I suggest we stick with the damn term and move on, lest we get into another debate over the next term. Just have heart and stay the course. Your commentary and enthusiasm is an inspiration.

Comment from Richard MacManus on 2005-12-20

2005-12-20T18:50:12Z

Thank you Hooman and everyone else for your great comments, I appreciate the support. I will certainly keep blogging, as long as the passion is there. :-)

Comment from eric goldstein on 2005-12-21

2005-12-21T19:48:46Z

If i never hear the term web 2.0 again i'll be cool with it. I really wish we'd just talk about ways that the web can be better and how people are trying to make it so. That's what this is about. The Web 2.0 term is, in my opinion exlusionary and unnecessary. I'm really glad that you've triggered this debate. I'm excited to follow your exploration of web technology in 2006.

Comment from Jay Fienberg on 2005-12-21

2005-12-22T02:02:11Z

Well, you might imagine what I'm thinking. ;-)

I always like your writing / blogging here, and have been impressed by how much you've captured the pulse of these things. Including now!

One comment though, about the technology being "honest":

There is some good (and even great) stuff happening with web technology, but it's important, given the hype that so many things labeled "web 2" should be respected as "the web", to look critically at which of these techs really adds to "the web" itself and which are just (or, mostly) proprietary to some company or other.

The Dot Com (web 1.0) era was about the ultimate failure of the majority of companies who thought *they* were the web, and about the success of the web that worked great because it couldn't be owned by any companies and people were free to do cool new things.

A year ago or so, "web 2.0" mostly signified the attitude of people who recognized that success and really believed in developing things that increased it. Now, it's arguably a lot more like thinking The Fonz is cool this week because he jumped the shark...

Comment from Jesse McCabe on 2005-12-22

2005-12-22T16:56:00Z

This is just like Prince changing his name to "the sign". You can try all you want to stop the masses from calling it "Web 2.0", but the best you'll ever get is "the artist formally known as Web 2.0".

Most of this complaining sounds like a painter who's work has been misinterpreted. Don't get hung up on the meaning (or those that debate the meaning) - it's actually a great moniker that has done it's job - started something big.