After all this posting about 37 Signals, I decided to take a peek at their blog, Signal vs Noice, to see what was amuck. There was an interesting post entitled The top ten things that aren’t web 2.0.
You can find a lot of interesting material in the long list of comments to this post, as well.
My take? I’ve already written about the mild corniness of the term “web 2.0″, an apprehension which I apparently share with a lot of others. For every person who is enamored with the term, there seem to be two or three others who hate it. Myself, I’ve been using it because people seem to know what you mean when you say it, and it seems to have become a catch-all phrase for a new sort of web application.
Are the web applications which we’re calling “web 2.0″ really new and different compared to the web applications of yesterday? I don’t know; but I’d say that many of them are better. Does being better mean that we need a new buzzword to describe them?
Apparently it does. ;-)
For better or worse, it seems that this buzzword will be around for awhile. In the meanwhile, I’m all in favor of the web getting better, whether we call it “web 2.0″ or “television 3.4″ or “Mega-techno-ultra-cyber-ether-matrix 3000″. Let’s just keep on building it.
