I’ve been wanting to write about Web 2.0 for a while, but by lack of motivation and because others already talk about it and that these discussions often become bitter, I had avoided the topic until now on this blog. However, I have been involved in commenting on many other bloggers’ blogs.

For those who didn’t follow the debate and for those of you new to the concept of the Web 2.0, here’s O’Reilly’s explanation of what it is.

Recently, following an article by Philippe Martin on his blog N’ayez pas peur, I was expressing that I thought that in essence, the source of the dispute between the camp of those for and those against Web 2.0 was a semantic matter. Indeed, there are no rigourous definitions of what is Web 2.0, and since everybody is making up its own mind and forging their own definition, we couldn’t possibly agree.

Michel Leblanc, who strongly believes and promotes the thesis in favour of Web 2.0 wrote an article entitled Pourquoi nommer le Web 2.0? (Why naming Web 2.0) which sort of answers this question. Essentially, his arguments add up with mine. He explains that humans need to name things and that each culture and sub-culture has their own interpretation about things. Truth is in the eye of the beholder, like they say.

Then, there is a certain malaise with the choice of the name. The name “Web 2.0″ is reminescent of the way software companies label they software, by adding a version number. However, when we leap from a major version (1.0) to another (2.0), it is usally done so that a significant evolution is marked, or to show that a software no longer has backward compatibility. The only other reason for which it is done is purely marketing, to give the illusion to the consumer that a piece of software is new and thus giving an excuse to upgrade, whereas sometimes only aesthetics fix-ups have been made. Here, we’re talking about the Web, a more abstract concept than a software, and by placing the label “2.0″, we imply implicitly that there was once a Web 1.0. Unfortunatly, for certain people in the Web business and for some programmers, coders, geeks, they never perceived such a clear cut between the 1.0 and the 2.0 era.

We still can’t deny the fact that there was at the end of the 90s a strong growth in on-line business. It was the dot-com craze. Everybody wanted to repeat the success of Amazon. High tech stock funds were skyrocketing with unprecedented level of performance. NASDAQ was becoming an important player alongside other stock markets.

Then, it crashed. Dot-coms went bankrupt, add to that the Nortel scandal and the confidence, or over-confidence became distrust. Many investors lost. Huge amounts. They had bet on immature technologies. Myself included, by proxy, with my savings in the mutual funds I owned. The bubble exploded. The 1.0 bubble.

Is this event the line between Web 1.0 and the Web 2.0 era? If so, then this wording is essentially economical.

Which brings me to admit, after some thinking, that this is not simply a semantic problem. The other side of the problem is the web 2.0 marketing.

Indeed, we can’t deny either that there is currently a ressurgeance in companies who launch Web products since about 3 years. Blogs are exploding, there is a new one every so often, there is an almost virgin market to be exploited.

Where I feel there is something rotten is that some people try to use the hype 2.0 to try to get rich. I’m a capitalist, I have absolutely nothing against the fact of becoming richer. If you have a million to spare, feel totally free to chuck it my way. But what ticks me off is the way Web 2.0 is used to sell almost anything. We sometime have the impression that they sell completely useless things.

This wouldn’t be the first time either. I will give some concrete examples of useless products that a lot of people bought like headless chickens:

ISO 9001 Certification (and others)

Why get ISO 9001 certified? Essentially, to do like everyone else, not to have a competitive disadvantage. Because in fact, all the ISO certification system is smoke. Suffice to know that the company pays a consulting firm (big money) to get certified. In other words, you give bribe money to the judge that will plead your case. Not a very transparent concept. Then, the certification only standardises the process, not its efficiency. So what’s the use to have a customer service protocol if it is utterly inefficient, but still standard? Among other things, to obtain contracts from the government, who puts this condition in order to get the contracts. Pretty corrupt, eh?


My favourite example:

Year 2000 bug

How many millions have been spent to fix this date problem that didn’t really exist? Some companies became huge by making money using the fear of people. Ask any honest computer scientist, programmer, coder, engineer, and they’ll tell you that none of them really believed the doomsday scenarios making the headlines of television and newspapers. Why didn’t we say so then? Because people prefer to hear about doomsday scenarios, it sells much better, and frankly, I think some journalists were naive enough and started to believe it. I’m almost surprised that no lawsuits for false representation towards these profiteering companies has been launched. I think these companies prefer to bury the topic since they got duped. When you get duped, you prefer to keep it quiet, because of pride. Or, maybe there are still some people that believe they made a good investment. Who knows..

So is Web 2.0 just wind? Is it a bubble about to pop, like the 1.0 bubble?

What do I know, but why do I sometimes am under the impression that someone is trying to sell me oatmeal in a new package?

brem