« Attention on China | Main | Web 2.0 Redux »


Web 2 Conference Boy

Great posting on Web 2.0. So now 4 years on what's your opinion on this matter? Do you think there's viable ROI in Web 2.0 [other than forming a successful start-up and selling it off].

More interestingly do you think you can really monetise Web 2.0?

There's some that say "yes", others "no" and the undecided!


Still, conferences and meets seem to get this question answered outright:


I think it'd be good to return to the subject :-D

law of attraction

You have a knack for making a difficult subject easy to understand. You did a very nice job.

Thanks a lot!


I have to comment on your last post about the subject as it was so informative. You really know what you are talking about and can explain things really well. I have only read posts by one other guy who writes as well as you do.


Does “Web 2.0″ mean anything more than the name of a conference yet? I don’t like to admit it, but it’s starting to. When people say “Web 2.0″ now, I have some idea what they mean. And the fact that I both despise the phrase and understand it is the surest proof that it has started to mean something.

Dennis Howlett

who cares?


i like that: it really is about time to try to give hard definitions. all these usual "but it's a buzzword"-rants become tiring indeed, and most of the other posts are very technology-centered (like the wikipedia entry). but also putting the stress on user/collaboration/creativity is not enough, me thinks. i still miss (a bit) a more abstract "semiotic/systemic" approach,which i think would have to consider all the implications of "autopoietic" microcontent/metacontent - but, yes, i have to admit i am an academic ...


There is no more a web 2.0 then there is a tv 2.0 or a radio 2.0. Everything is a version of everything else.


An interesting overview. I agree with you regarding Web 2.0 as a return to the original principles of Tim Berners Lee's work - his book 'Weaving the Web' gives a good overview of this.

If I have any frustration with using 'Web 2.0' as a descriptor is that it implies newness, and with it a rejection of the old model of few publishers and a large number of viewers. From my perspective I see more similarities than differences between Web 2.0 and the world you and Armstrong described in 1997 in 'Net Gain'.

Certainly some of the tools are new but the type of interaction they enable is similar. I have also yet to see information showing that a larger proportion of people are using the new Web 2.0 tools than used the discussion groups etc. that were available in 1997. Are we simply seeing a movement from one type of tools to another by a certain group?

Can any increase be due to the differing web usage of different demographic groups? If we look at how those entering the workforce now have used the web it has always been in terms of collaboration. This can be seen in how they demand organisational communications and even how they respond to management.

The comments to this entry are closed.