Can we stop with the 2.0 already?

Yes its odd but just to make a note Newsvine is not web2.0

Oh and Info on Web 2.0

Nuno, I agree the term is suspect, but I think there really is some thought to be given to the creations generated by "Web 2.0." Granted, I referred recently to Web 2.0 on a Newsvine chat as "Marketing speak for a single javascript object people started using," referring of course to xmlhttprequest. But, the idea and implementation of rich html applications like Basecamp (a slick Ruby on Rails project management web app) are, I think, truly valuable. It's slightly amusing the great number of (I'll admit complicity here) articles and commentaries on "new" technologies that aren't new, but there is a point to be learned and perspective to be had that the creativity that has recently been unleashed because of the popularity of these technologies is real, and is having an impact on us and the internet as a whole. There are ways in which myself and others have been able to seriously improve the user experience of a web application (in my case an internal, enterprise web application) using what people are calling "Web 2.0." If your point is to quit calling it that, I'm with you. If it is to diminish the efforts of those who have been exposed to it because of the excessive publicity, I wholeheartedly disagree.

What else is a new industry to do, but reinvent it's self. It is constantly evolving and until we start to see an increase in bandwith, it is still just the internet. Pessimistically, it's taking lemons making lemonade. Optimistically, I still don't know what it is truely, but it definitely sounds cool. I agree it is a marketing scheme, but that doesn't mean there isn't some validity to some of the concepts.

Nuno: A couple points. First of all, thank you. Second, I think we should be less sensitive to perceived hype. If people want to call it Web 2.0, while you and I think its chintzy (sp?), perhaps it has legs that inspire. And in a sense, it truly does make sense. The web has had a disadvantage to client applications for quite a while, and for good reason - responsiveness. That which is called Web 2.0 (which you rightly acknowledge) has provided a great narrowing of the differences between the two. In a way, it makes sense to differentiate the new experience of web applications from the old. I welcome the organization that takes the time and has the temerity to create a web form that is user-centric in its operation. If they feel somehow "Web 2.0," I congratulate them for their responsiveness to change and close attention to user experience.

because of the word 'beta'? for them, web 1.0 is 'under construction'

This is still the World Wide Web which runs over the Internet, and it still needs a regular browser to run. It really is just another buzzword, like "blog" and "blogosphere".

All the technologies associated with "Web 2.0" have been around since the late 90's. It has really taken people this long to harness their abilities.

Web 2.0 is just a buzzword - nothing more.

It is beneficial in that it gives an easy "badge" to some of the technologies that web developers like me are using, whilst not blinding non-technical clients with lots of acronyms - XHTML, JS, CSS, AJAX, XML...

On the other side of the coin, it's pure marketing spin. It makes this kind of functionality the new "must have" item, whether a site needs it or not. In this way it's the all-new equivalent of the flash intro.

I think it's helpful to be able to badge a service or technology in this way as it makes it more accessible to clients, but we need to beware the Web 2.0 bubble where a few vocal commentators have the power to render it a "fad" by talking it up and getting it used where it simply provides little or no added benefit.

As for the "two point oh" handle... how about "two point... oh give me a break!"

2.0 or not, it's about due time we get a patch.

I think web 2.0 as a concept is quite good. When I first saw web 2.0 I knew it was a buzzword. But what it means to me is a combination of social networking, standards compliance and good design. Perhaps the buzzword is wrong but I think anything that encoruges people to design to the standards is a good thing.

The Ajax stuff is a good embelishment but standards compatibility has to come first in my opionon.

At first, I was excited, now it is being way overused. I think it was suppose to be any user submitted community revolving around a central idea more than a blog; either news or sharing pictures.

Now, the term seems to be used for any clean looking CSS generated web idea. I agree though, it is getting pathetic.

Web 2.0 as a phrase may be just market spin, but I can't agree with canceling it out.

AJAX is the same. Spin on an already existing set of technologies to make a new word out of the same batch of junk. Oh but what a batch of junk. Just that word becoming the new buzz has made the Internet experience better in many ways just because it's become so prolific in it's use.

We programmers and designers may find it horridly pointless, but we aren't who it's aimed at either. You're a programmer... if you're freelance just that phrase is cash to you. Enjoy it.

Using "Web 2.0" as any sort of marketing tagline or a pressed feature point of the web service or app simply means they have little to offer.

What is to be considered "Web 2.0" is really subjective to begin with, as most are aware. There is no set definition by any standards organization that I'm aware of surrounding the term. The author is right, it's just a trendword, just as "Podcasting," "Blog," and "Google" are.

Newsvine; The Latest in Web 2.0!

I've spent the past 15 years as a front-line application promoter in which I've straddled the chasm between IT and a company's business units. Despite some of the very cool changes that have developed by programmers and designers, it's been near to impossible to get executives to spend more than five minutes to discuss XML containers, metadata tags, or parent-child relationships between data. But now execs are clamoring for Web 2.0 applications. Why don't we have wikis? Where's our RSS feed? Whether you like 2.0 as a descriptor or not, it's hard to deny that it has caught fire with the folks who make funding decisions about where to invest the company's resources.

So it smacks of marketing. So what? Web 2.0 is the best thing that's happened to IT in ages. So what if it's repackaging of stuff you've known how to do for 10 years, people finally want it. Who cares what they call it.

Well, it is a silly term, but at least it's better than WebXP, iWeb, or GnuWeb ;)