The decline of web 2.0

By Razib Khan | March 27, 2011 1:56 pm

In 2006-2007 I worked at a firm which had its own web application, and “web 2.0″ was a big term in the marketing materials. This article in DealB%k, Is It a New Tech Bubble? Let’s See if It Pops, made me wonder what happened to that term.

Here’s Google Trends:

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Technology
  • Ian

    Killed by “social media” and “social networking”? I suppose people who would otherwise have been creating content for free online decided that Facebook was better use of their time? :)

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp Razib Khan

    i think part of the issue is that ‘web 2.0′ is now just the web.

  • Paul Ó Duḃṫaiġ

    Well the new buzz term these days is “Cloud” this and “Cloud” that

  • Jason

    Razib hit it head on. I hated the term so much because “web 2.0″ makes it sound as if there were another new version of the web which was incorrect. It was only a “fancier” way of doing the same thing. IMO ipv6 would of been better suited to be called “Web 2.0″. It was only natural that it blended in (because it always was). It was just that at that time many jumped on board.

  • Daniel

    This data, seemingly indicative of web usage, is anything but – from what I can see. A few points:
    1. Much of p2p is off the grid – for good reasons. Noone that I know who uses p2p searches uses google or affiliates owned by google; they have no access to the data.
    2. If the above tracked searches, which I cant imagine it doing anything but re; ‘web 2.0′ then the data is useless – why would anyone search ‘web 2.0′ except to ind out what people mean? If, on the other hand, it is saying that these are web 2.0 site visitations… then thats ridiculous. Why? because most social media is 2.0; these above terms are not mutually exclusive. 2.0 refers to a style of design combined with interactive media – audio + video. thats it.. period. And those are facts, not speculation – run a ‘web 2.0′ search if you dont believe me, you’ll learn what it is – just like all the users in 2007 and 2008.
    3. WHAT is this graph? It just doesnt make any sense. p2p isnt down, its up. Fact. This has to be searches and/or indexed sites only… either-way; its bad data. I hope marketing folks aren’t using it to make decisions.

  • JaberwokWSA

    I don’t think anyone really knows what Web 2.0 means. I’ve heard different people define it as:
    1.) A Web that has become integrated into a wide range of devices from your computer to your phone, your TV, and your fridge.
    2.) A Web that integrates audio and video to the static text and image of the early World Wide Web.
    3.) A style of design / appearance / interface for Web pages.
    4.) A Web that moves its content from site developers to everyday consumers (that is, blogs, Facebook, social media, etc.)

    They are all just different ways to use the same old internet, so I’d say they they are more like Web 1.2. When you really get a new design for the internet, then you can say it is new and improved. Let’s get IMO ipv6 implemented. Then we can have Web 2.0.

    It’s like the incredible jump from Web 0.1 (FTP sites as the primary interface to the internet) to Web 1.0 (browsers and WWW pages). That was a huge change in the interaction and use of the internet. Nothing of “Web 2.0″ is a huge change. They are just small and neat improvements, tools, and toys.

    I do agree with Daniel and Razib about the changes in search text. The data is biased over time by the changes in terminology more than by the rise and fall of their use.

  • onur

    It’s like the incredible jump from Web 0.1 (FTP sites as the primary interface to the internet) to Web 1.0 (browsers and WWW pages). That was a huge change in the interaction and use of the internet. Nothing of “Web 2.0″ is a huge change. They are just small and neat improvements, tools, and toys.

    Probably there will never be a Web 2.0 (or Web 3.0, Web 4.0, etc.) in that sense, as when such a huge change in the interaction and use of the Internet happens it will probably not be called “Web” but something else, just as the pre-WWW FTP-based Internet wasn’t called “Web” (the Web is just an abbreviation of the WWW).

    BTW, I agree that the term “Web 2.0″ as it is used today is an inappropriate term and, as a software engineer, I never use it myself.

  • Pingback: Print: elemental to humanity? « Shore Up()

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Gene Expression

This blog is about evolution, genetics, genomics and their interstices. Please beware that comments are aggressively moderated. Uncivil or churlish comments will likely get you banned immediately, so make any contribution count!

About Razib Khan

I have degrees in biology and biochemistry, a passion for genetics, history, and philosophy, and shrimp is my favorite food. In relation to nationality I'm a American Northwesterner, in politics I'm a reactionary, and as for religion I have none (I'm an atheist). If you want to know more, see the links at http://www.razib.com

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT

RSS Razib’s Pinboard

Edifying books

Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »