Why Web 2.0 still matters

Last week, I wrote about my company's thinking about social media, technology and why it's time to transform.  Here's another comment worth elevating and reblogging to continue the discussion.

Jennifer Pahlka says,

"Transformation and revolution are two really different ideas, and the deeper the change you want to drive the more you better be prepared to persevere. Hard, important work gets done incrementally, iteratively and for now, experimentally. Which requires a healthy dose of failure, and often a lot of introspection. This post reads like a mashup of Bruce Nussbaum’s call for transformation and Tim O’Reilly’s Work on Stuff That Matters, but unfortunately tainted with a tone of disdain. There’s a good idea in this post, but it’s lost in the pointless attempt to kill what’s gone before."

Jennifer is the general manager of the Web 2.0 Expo and related events - she knows all about what the term "web 2.0" really means.  Point taken and clarification necessary here.

Tim O'Reilly provided the world with a seminal definition of Web 2.0 on September 30, 2005.  The key principles he outlines in the post are:

1. Web as platform; 
2. Harnessing collective intelligence;
3. Data is the next Intel Inside;
4. End of the software release cycle; and
5. Lightweight programming models.

Have we really made good on these ideas?  You tell me, but I dont think so.  We've only scratched the surface on using the web as platform.  

For example, Google may have killed off some applications this week, but they've positioned their enterprise apps for success.  I'm guessing that most readers of this blog may have heard the first story, but missed the news on the second.  Most marketing-types are more interested in putting finished goods to work, rather than focusing upstream in the value chain.

Earlier, I wrote "the term Web 2.0 connotes incremental change and evolution, not revolution."  To be more precise in my thinking, it'll clarify:  the term Web 2.0 has been co-opted for nearsighted purposes that fail to realize the potential of the original concept's vision. In my experience, I've seen a lot of marketing applications that are merely incremental improvement over existing campaign tactics.  That's why it's time to transform.

My intent is not to kill the groundwork that's been laid for us by social computing pioneers (many mentioned by commenters on the previous post).  Quite the opposite - we need to get back to the original principles and work on stuff that matters in our own worlds.

If anything, Web 2.0 can't be "dead."  We haven't even gotten there yet.

For skeptics who predict it'll be DOA - then what are you doing, reading this blog, collaborating with its community of readers?  (Don't leave a comment, write me a letter about why you think I'm wrong.)

Comments

[Jens Best]

Sometimes when I read discussions about the evolutionary impact of Web 2.0 I have to think of Star Trek.

Gene Roddenberry (creator of Star Trek) had a vision of a positive utopia with a human touch from the FIRST draft, but because the reality of TV in the 70's wasn't ready for that he added some western-style elements (like Capt. Kirk) to fit the needs of that time. But many viewers were caught by the implemented positive vision even when it was hidden behind some brawls with green-skinned aliens.

And with TNG (The Next Generation) with Capt. Piccard the vision came true because it was demanded by the big crowd of Trekkies longing for a good told story of a positive future (in which human failure still exists).

That's how I see Web 2.0 - the vision of a connected transparent fair world enabled by a global social communication system - reloaded to approach the real challenge in human interaction.

The story is told by thousand voices - Web 2.0 is the collective storyteller. Sharing a good true story will increase the online output of your product (service etc.) - especially if you let the prosumer tell it.

[Janetti]

@ari You shouldn't have to use the term "Web 2.0" when talking about social media - what Tim says is that Web is a platform, not just about social networking tools. As the community manager for the Web 2.0 conferences, I can say with authority that the term is sticking around. I've heard a lot and debated a lot, but Web 2.0 represents the next iteration of the Web, whatever form that comes in.

Thanks Peter for this post (and your comment, I think we were writing simultaneously).

[Peter Kim]

It's not about Tim O'Reilly, it's about the five principles. That's why just calling it "the web" is too blunt. But I understand, it provides easy out for carpetbagging consultants to change their tune. Yesterday it was Facebook, today it's Twitter, tomorrow something else.

[Ari Herzog]

If Tim O'Reilly coined a new term tomorrow to replace Web 2.0, would you continue to say Web 2.0 matters?

It is for such questions I don't use "Web 2.0" when talking about social media. I say the web.

[Oliver Young]

Hey Pete, here is what matters: Web 2.0 is a fundamental rethinking of the definition and function of the firm; the single biggest change since the industrial revolution. On the back of social software how we think about value creation will dramatically change from a fundamentally closed system to a fundamentally open one. It's going to be huge!

Thanks for your thought provoking blog posts as of late; you pushed me to blog my own thoughts on the topic here: http://blog.strategicheading.com/2009/01/20/web-20-represents-a-fundamental-rethinking-of-business-and-the-theory-of-the-firm/

[David Mattia]

Innovation is both costly and risky. In a world that has become risk averse to more than just stock funds, the path of least resistance is to partner with our better and best customers by agreeing to truly cooperate. Successfully reaching web 2.0 ambitions will require verifiable trust to be established in an more structured version of the digital wild west...digital towns will have rules that people abide by willingly or they should be excluded. "Allowing" the groundswell does not mean letting go. Our present social mood is telling us more rules are desired now.