& cplSiteName &

Banned: Web 2.0

Phil Harvey
6/29/2006

3:15 PM -- I thought I would stop at quadruple play, but I've recently discovered that there are plenty of other words I need to ban from the pages of Light Reading.

This time around, I'm taking out Web 2.0, Web 3.0, and any other variation of what sane people used to call an Internet-based business, or a dotcom.

Marketing folks and venture capitalists are using Web 2.0 to refer to a "second generation" of services offered via the Internet. In short, they've found a way to describe their businesses based on a feature or two, rather than calling the business what it really is: a dotcom.

Here's a snippet of text I pulled from a press release last week that refers to Web 2.0 as if it's a real thing. Note the buzzwords required to prop up the concept:

Providing community, user-generated content, syndication and aggregation software, Pluck helps its customers leverage the new open content model that has emerged as the cornerstone of Web 2.0.

In plain English, Pluck Corp., the company that sent the press release, makes software. The software they make helps people and companies set up blogs, photo albums, and stuff like that. As a service, Pluck can probably host all the stuff you can create with its software. Was that so hard?

Well, yes, according to Pluck. Because they want you to think that some clever bits of code are really "social media solutions that transform how everyday people and publishers discover, create and distribute information online."

In other words, they've smelled their own asses so long they've completely forgotten how to tell people what it really is they do for a living.

Don't get me wrong, Internet-based companies aren't all bad. Thanks to the one I work for, as George W Bush would say, I've been able to put food on my family for many years.

But there's no magic to a business that's labeled as Web 2.0, anymore than there is in calling a new car "Auto 2.0." Cars still have four wheels, an engine, doors, etc. Internet companies, like all other companies, have some thing or service they're trying to sell so they can make money.

The fact that the business is based on, or heavily relies on, the Internet isn't that big a deal these days, so we're ditching Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 in favor of plainer, saner, language.

As a social experiment, if you run into someone who insists on using Web 2.0 to describe stuff, look at their resumé and take note of where they worked in 1999 and 2000 -- arguably, the Web 1.0 years. Odds are they've got the shrapnel of a few dotcom bombs buried deep in their skulls somewhere.

— Phil Harvey, Words Editor, Light Reading

(9)  | 
Comment  | 
Print  | 
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
sfwriter
sfwriter
12/5/2012 | 3:50:10 AM
re: Banned: Web 2.0
Wouldn't it be great if you could create new version of yourself once the old version became unpopular?

Phil 2.0 anyone?
lightreceding
lightreceding
12/5/2012 | 3:50:09 AM
re: Banned: Web 2.0
Web 2.0 is a hype of the day similar to everyone running around saying that they need to stop selling boxes and start selling solutions.

I like to ask them what they are actually selling, as in show me your price list with the orderable items.

This kind of messaging is similar to what I call the leading lie on press releases where every company is a market leader.

I think it is geared to the MBA's in suits who freak out over details how about what the stuff does, but love buzz words like leveraging the value proposition.
DCITDave
DCITDave
12/5/2012 | 3:50:09 AM
re: Banned: Web 2.0
Phil 2.0 was fired.

We're back to Phil 1.7. He's still a bit buggy and weird, but much more predictable.

ph
paolo.franzoi
paolo.franzoi
12/5/2012 | 3:50:09 AM
re: Banned: Web 2.0

Banning words approaches censorship!

I suggest we take Phil out back and flog him!

seven
DCITDave
DCITDave
12/5/2012 | 3:50:07 AM
re: Banned: Web 2.0
I'm banning discussions of censorship, too.
rjmcmahon
rjmcmahon
12/5/2012 | 3:50:07 AM
re: Banned: Web 2.0
On the topic of censorship, it's interesting to compare search results from http://www.google.com and http://www.google.cn

A search string like "falun gong organ harvesting" yields quite different results.
paolo.franzoi
paolo.franzoi
12/5/2012 | 3:50:06 AM
re: Banned: Web 2.0

I want to ban messages about banning messages about censorship!

:)

seven
optodoofus
optodoofus
12/5/2012 | 3:50:05 AM
re: Banned: Web 2.0
Phil would reply, but I hear that he accidentally banned himself.

optodoofus
DCITDave
DCITDave
12/5/2012 | 3:50:02 AM
re: Banned: Web 2.0
In observation of my self-ban, I can't comment on anything.

ph
More Blogs from The Philter
Ciena's latest acquisition is another piece of a larger back office puzzle for carriers, but the vendor said it's not aiming to become the new OSS stack.
States still have the option of enacting their own net neutrality regulations following today's DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruling upholding the FCC rollback of net neutrality rules.
Ovum Chief Analyst Ed Barton talks to Light Reading's Ray Le Maistre about the services and opportunities 5G unlocks for consumers – and what new capabilities are just around the corner.
The vendor's new XR Optics technology could cut carrier opex and capex in service providers' metro networks. But can the company get everyone else to buy into coherent optical sub-carrier aggregation?
As the editors recap Light Reading's event series on network functions virtualization (NFV) and software-defined networking (SDN), technologies like 5G and edge computing arrive just in time to hurry the industry along its path to more modern networks and add plenty of drama.
Featured Video
Upcoming Live Events
October 22, 2019, Los Angeles, CA
November 5, 2019, London, England
November 7, 2019, London, UK
November 14, 2019, Maritim Hotel, Berlin
December 3-5, 2019, Vienna, Austria
December 3, 2019, New York, New York
March 16-18, 2020, Embassy Suites, Denver, Colorado
May 18-20, 2020, Irving Convention Center, Dallas, TX
All Upcoming Live Events