It looks obvious

I read a very good column in eWeek claiming that Web 2.0 is in large a marketing term that failed to describe a real technological development or business model improvement. While many of the things written in the past this column put the finger on several key issues.   
When marking the web evolution and declaring the current step in the evolution as 2.o we need to check in what is it different from its predecessor. The problem is that the term Web 2.0 was conceived as rallying call for the recovery of Web business in the post-dot-com crash era and not as technological development. Moreover, as the column points out:

“Even O’Reilly concedes that the Web didn’t collapse with the dot-com market meltdown. The Web kept growing and evolving with hardly a blink as more people signed on every year.”
Moreover most of the “Flag” web 2.0 companies were:
“Successful Web companies such as such as Amazon.com, Yahoo, eBay, MapQuest, MSN and Google were prosperous concerns in 2001 and have only grown bigger since then. Many of the companies that have since emerged as market leaders, such as CRM (customer relationship management) companies Salesforce.com, NetSuite and RightNow Technologies, got their start well before the dot-com meltdown. “

But what is the problem then with the term? As I wrote previously it is because the labeling might lead for another bubble:

“But a rallying call to join Web 2.0 could also be an invitation to participate in Bubble 2.0. For every good idea in the market there may be two or three bad ideas that are dressed up to look like winners because they carry the approved Web 2.0 label.
Every business cycle has its winners and losers. This one will be no different. The lesson that we should have learned from the last Web shakeout was that there is no magic or special sauce when it comes to the Web.
The laws of economics are no different whether people are using a mouse to point and click to buy goods and services, or a pen to fill out an order from the old Sears catalog.”

He then concludes with simple observation:

“AJAX, Ruby on Rails, RSS, wikis or any other reputed Web 2.0 technology won’t make any business successful unless they are built into Web applications that work, are useful, make money and deliver value to customers.
Every venture, no matter what technology it uses, has to be judged on its own merits, not because it carries some catchy label.”

Absolutely worth the reading!