Where are we with Web 2.0?
posted Friday, 23 December 2005
Web 2.0 has become a polarizing yet strangely magnetic topic du jour. It's a subject a great many people love to grouse about, even as they spend way too much time thinking about it, all the while hating it, loving it, or just trying to figure it out. Web 2.0 has waxed and waned and then waxed again over 2005 as the blogosphere hype/anti-hype cycle has whipsawed back and forth.
If you take the temperature of the status quo, the inestimable Dave Winer currently has the mike with his Busted, Explained article, but numerous others have chimed in recently including quite famously Richard MacManus, who was then called out by Mike Arrington of TechCrunch, then Joshua Porter went on to explain why he still uses the term, ad infinitum. It was Russell Shaw however that was the one who really stirred the pot to considerable effect, but even he was then answered in kind by his very own Joe McKendrick. Folks like Stowe Boyd have come out about this latest Web 2.0 brouhaha very level headed, as have a number of others who seem to have some perspective including Marc Cantor, Jeneane Sessum, and Frederico Oliveira. Now Shaw has come back swinging and shows no sign of flagging in his attempt to assert that Web 2.0 has no clothes. An attempt almost certain to fail, I might add, though we'll probably make yet another trip around the blogosphere mulberry bush.
A lot of smart, passionate folks have weighed in and the consensus, at least in my mind, clearly points to Web 2.0's promise and value. I myself come in on the side that as a complex and subtle set of ideas, Web 2.0 continues to be extensively misunderstood yet a vital touchstone for the future of the Web. Like McKendrick says above, saying Web 2.0 doesn't exist is like saying Ajax and Wikipedia don't exist. Personally, I think clear and repeated explanation and education will be the only way to get past these discussions and back to the business of evolving the Web.
In more general discussion, the year end prediction lists are making the rounds. John Battelle's 2006 prediction list includes #7, which says "'Web 2.0' will make the cover of Time Magazine, and thus its moment in the sun will have passed. However, the story that drives 'Web 2.0' will only strengthen, and folks will cast about for the next best name for the phenomenon." I do note that he has started quoting his use of the term. Another list making the rounds also weighs in on Web 2.0. Jason Calacanis' 2006 prediction list claims interestingly that the deflation of the housing bubble is going to cool down Web 2.0 investment seriously next year.
Meanwhile, and most importantly, thousands of people are using Web 2.0 ideas to build truly great online software while millions of people are using starting to use it. It's been a terrific year in the sense that while Web 2.0 is being debated back and forth using the very two-way Web mechanisms that Web 2.0 describes, it's actually happening en masse.
Finally, Web 2.0 ideas of less is higher quality and lightweight programming models like Ruby, Ruby on Rails, Ajax, microformats, and many others are changing the way people think about designing and developing software, with permanent consequences.
December 2005 Cover Story - Web 2.0: The Global SOA
Note: Not my favorite visualization of Web 2.0 with the big poisonous spider, but then again, some folks would think it's perfect.
For example, my new article about Web 2.0 has been made the year end cover story of the SOA Web Services Journal. In this article, I more fully explore my belief that the major organizing principles in software are converging, with Web 2.0 and SOA being a particularly important example that has implications for all of us, both users and developers. This idea has been getting quite a bit of coverage recently from ZDNet and other folks. And it's not just me, important figures in software development are beginning to pick these ideas up and recommend applying them. I also recently articulated why all this matters, and what specifically the value proposition with using Web 2.0 ideas for all forms of software development. This is compelling material that you just can't ignore, because you can bet your competitors won't.
Things can get better with Web 2.0.
I much prefer this visualization of the convergence of landscapes of services into pervasive social software.
In any case, regardless of what you think of the term, Web 2.0 has been highly effective at making people everywhere think quite differently about the software they create and use. And because of the interest, buzz, hype, and real-world success, 2006 will only continue to see the forces behind Web 2.0 grow. Expect major surpises and new highs and lows as the big players in the software business start releasing wave after wave of online, social software next year.links: del.icio.us
So far, the main standards-bearers for web 2.0 are early-adopter kinds of
applications. The real test is in adoption by the mainstream. When my
mother (who's actually pretty savvy) is using it, we're there. As an aside,
I noticed that my mother almost never says "internet" or "web". To her,
it's all just "the computer". Maybe web 2.0's final success is when we no
longer (need to) have a name for it.
