It seems like you can’t turn around on the internet these days without running into the phrase “Web 2.0”. Some of the chatter is positive, some is negative — I’ll weigh in with the latter group. Why did they let this one leave the brainstorming session? Web 2.0 sounds like a bad Microsoft concept or at the very least an immature product. Then again, why stop at Web 2.0? It seems sort of minimalist. We should really go all-out and call it eXtreme Web 2005 Mega Enterprise Edition.
There are a lot of smart people around making a lot of smart things, but they need to stop pimping the phrase. I don’t think anyone can really step back and say, “Yup, sure looks like a point upgrade happened sometime around April. What do you think Frank?” That said, it’s mostly a marketing endeavor — people work well with acronyms and buzzwords. Take AJAX, there’s been some backlash related to branding a technology that’s been around for years, but it’s given everyone a common point to rally around.
Inventing buzz words is cool, I understand the need — but Web 2.0? We can do better. Why not come up with a term like AJAX that actually describes the underlying paradigm shift? How about Dynamic and Fluid Technologies (DAFT) or Dynamic User-Dependant Environment (DUDE) or Fluid Interactive Services Hub (FISH)? I could go on.
The whole web 2.0 thing is a semantic argument and kind of a pissy little thing to bring up, but no one in the “Web 2.0” crowd actually reads this site, so it doesn’t matter.