The

Life

and

Death

“Web 2.0”

By Adam S. Bellow

An Abridged History of “Web 2.0”

The term “Web 2.0” was first coined in 1999. That is more than ten yearsago. A whole lot has happened in those ten years. For instance we wereintroduced to a little web company named Google. Although founded in1996, Google didn’t really become a major player on the scene until 1999.It feels like a technological lifetime ago. And in technology terms it is.

1999 Google Screenshot 2010 Google Screenshot

To think of it another way – the term was coined before the first iPod.However, to be fair, while that was the first time the term was kickedaround, it didn’t really take on the common meaning or gain popularityuntil around 2003-04. And to put 2003 in perspective for you, the “newlyredesigned and cutting edge iPod” looked like this…

iPod 2003 iPod Touch 2009

“Web 2.0” became a label one put on a website that was, as Tim O’Reillyso famously stated, “a web application that facilitates interactiveinformation sharing, interoperability, user-centered design,

andcollaboration on the World Wide Web”.At the time, the term meant something because the predominantnumber of websites simply informed. Company web pages and basicinformation tools, such as dictionaries and encyclopedia reference sites,provided users data and static information that offered no interaction(social or otherwise). These non-interactive sites were all instantlydowngraded to the moniker “Web 1.0”.“Web 2.0” was sexy. “Web 2.0” was cool. It was a new buzz-word. Acatch phrase. And, unfortunately, it still seems to be lingering with ustoday. The “2.0” signified that there was a distinct and definabledifference from what came before it.That’s fine. Initially this idea makes sense. For a few months or even ayear we can have a shiny new name to define a changing medium.Perhaps you might remember “Coke II” or “New Coke”.

Coke II New Coke1985 1986

These were names added to the bubbly-beverage to try and define aslightly different taste. Why did the company go back to “Coke”?

Because “II” and “New” added nothing of value to the product and after the marketing buzz wore off, the names confused the consumer. Addingnumbers or meaningless adjectives do nothing but call attention for ashort period of time. In the end it was still the same old soda. The namemay have been intended to define a new taste due to a switch of aningredient or two, but in the end it was still a sugary carbonatedbeverage.The same is true of the term “Web 2.0”. Today’s web is almost entirelyinteractive or social in some way. Why continue to use a term thatdistinguishes itself from the predecessor if the predecessor no longer needs to be differentiated from? Even most of the static sites from yearsago now offer and allow a level of social interaction. I can tweetdefinitions from the dictionary, comment on or even add information toencyclopedia entries, and buy custom designed shoes from companies.That is true of almost all the sites out there these days. At the very leastyou can add comments or share content on almost any site. And thoseare the most basic examples. The fact is that when I think of all the sites Iuse on daily basis (and there are a ton of them) they are all “Web 2.0”sites. But really, what isn’t these days? I simply have grown sick of themeaningless term and simply refer to it as “The Web”.However, The Web has evolved. It’s that simple. We gave a name to our ancestors that described them, “Cave-People”. That is a term that isdefinable and clear. It paints a literal picture and simply explains whatmade them different from us. We evolved as well, but I don’t see anyone