I have always despised the term “web 2.0″, which is why I called my blog web.2point1.com.

I also despise the term “widget” – it is a word that by definition describes something indescribable.

Wouldn’t miss it. It was just an online fad anyway.

Web 3.0 will be kicked around after the economy picks up.

The web is so over-analyzed and riddled with terminology and trends that Its starting to reach a point of insanity.

Who cares if its the end of “Web 2.0″ ? In my mind, it was never anything more than a meaningless buzzword

Web 2.0 has always been just a “marketing” term

I actually downloaded the leaked beta of Web 3.0 last night. Pretty sweet.

I think it’s normal, after so long.

Afterall the term “web 2.0″ was just a term used to differenciate the new from the old.

Today web 2.0 is kind of a standard so why include the term web 2.0 when it brings nothing new?

[...] From the graph, you can clearly see there’s been a gradual decrease in interest over the past 12 months, with volume declined by almost 40%. TechCrunch takes a closer look at those graphs. [...]

I like how Robin basicly writes about how one of their sponsors “Expo” is worthless and won’t exist in 2 years.

just got it on my iphone.

Huh?

Should I invest in a web 2.0 company?…

We hear so much about web 2.0 social communities, so how does an angel investor determine the hype from the substance? Do they watch this trend flame out or do they jump on the wave? The danger of the hype of the web 2.0 companies is that we can get …

Finally! Thank god!

Web 2.0 was always a bullshitting term and everybody who was frequently using it prooved what an idiot he was.

The drop is probably due to the rise in the term “social media”. Social media seems to be the new web 2.0 – every other article and discussion seems to be on about it. Business are all looking to ‘leverage’ it. Not sure which one’s worse. I think I preferred web 2.0 which was at least more tech web speak. Social media is pure marketing speak.

Riza

http://urbansurvivalproject.blogspot.org

Web 2.0 is only a way to summarize an important makeover of WWW.

the new age is an age of cobwebs. Those who have success online will build cobweb like structures using the different API’s to link and reach users in exciting and new ways.

We have seen the same thing when companies submit their business plans to angels for investment. I think web 2.0 isn’t going away or dying, it just isn’t novel anymore. Companies aren’t using it to describe their companies because it as assumed they are integrating that functionality in any web design. Like not calling your company a dot.com company by year 2000. Not too long ago I posted on my angel investor blog how to make investment decisions in web 2.0 companies because so many, particularly on the east coast just didn’t get it, mostly because they didn’t have revenue models and just were creating ROI on perceived eyeball volume and future potential. Updated that blog with your findings: http://tinyurl.com/web20angel

Web 3.0: 3 is the perfect number for the Net.
So: “web 2.0″ is only a therm, a buzzword. I think that are more important and considerable: “social media”, “internet of things”, “semantic web”.

But anyway. As we see the current bubble bursting I doubt we will see another bubble appearing in the internet in the near future.

After the “new economy” and “web 2.0″ it should be become really hard to convince/cheat anymore clueless investors (better saying people giving the investors money) to invest in this field.

I see a bubble coming in the “clean energy” sector. So if you’re good in bullshitting please leave the web and do what you can do best.

I was compelled to blog my reaction to this – And other terms I hate. http://web.2point1.com/2009/02/14/reaction-the-death-of-web-20/

Widget has the benefit of having been around a long time – I first heard it in the 80s – whereas Web2.0 is pure marketing hype.

Web 2.0 is not dead. Web 1.0 is dead… making the “2.0″ moniker extraneous.

I’m very much looking forward to Robin’s next article: “Man Lands on Moon”

u said its fading , i would appreciate if you aswell predict the reasons

Story requests should be redirected to our general e-mail address :)

True, although I don’t see how that’s a benefit.

A widget is also a small piece of plastic at the bottom of a beer can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widget_(beer)

Robin is declaring the death of the *term*, not the *thing*. Everything we assume the term to mean is alive and well.

Sad sad little men. Seriously is that also the death of America? The death of midgets? Or even looking at Google Trends… THE DEATH of the INTERNET Ohh noes!

Seriously, maybe it is the death of the web in general :O Less users? Less searches? Pointless article once again on techcrunch. It’s sad to see so many people rely on your site for predictions.

It’s inevitable that the term Web 2.0 would fade in usage, isn’t it? It’s like naming operating systems or software, the numbers wears out, seems old, and needs to be replaced by the next number (Web 3.0? No, please, no.) or a name (Web Vista? No. Please, no.)

I agree with the comment up above that the trend now seems to be toward “social media.”

Sites, like the one I am product and designer manager for (http://www.updown.com), that have members and some social connections, are trying to figure out how to work in all of the other social tools, like Twitter, Facebook Connect, Google Friend Connect, etc., in a strategic way. It’s not easy.

[...] малко прочетох много интересна статия, въпреки, че не претендира да бъде точна и правилно [...]

[...] been screaming this particular perspective for a while now and I’ve found some more backing from a few guys that “really” [...]

what about Software as a Service? or Cloud Computing?

the biggest term that is on its death bed and nobody pays attention too is “search engine”.

if the internet had started out with the term “location engine” everything would have made sense. people would have focused on what is important and we would not have the algorithm, dummy domain name era that has screwed everyone up for the last 15 years. yahwho is probably one the the most famous geriatric domain choices in the history of the internet. those dam radio and tv commercials were some of the most irritating you could ever listen too. yyyyaaaaaaaaaaahooooooooo! how many people want a social profile at yahope or geocites? proof dorky properties will get you nowhere.

EngineLocator.com – position yourself

[...] para definir a fase da interatividade, mesmo que tenha sido criado por Tim’OReilly. Segundo Robin Wauters do Techcrunch, o número de “startups” de tecnologia que se denominam “2.0″ diminuiu e a [...]

What’s wrong with web versioning or naming conventions?

I see hyperbolic phrasings as useful cultural/social indicators. This way vast groupings on the periphery can grasp the evolution of ideas/concepts on the time continuum which may empower them in some form.

With one term (however numnut-sounding) granma gets the idea that the internet is something different today than it was eight years ago. And I like my granma mentally grasping, even abstractly and superficially, the changes that abound in current realities relating to technology.

I think that the death of “web 2.0″ as a term is probably more focused around a couple of things.

1) Web 2.0 meant that there *needed* to be some sort of differentiation between what was being released and what was already out there. Aside from maybe a few things, the majority of “new” releases do not really contribute anything beyond what’s already available.

2) In order to use the term “web 2.0″ and be taken seriously in the eyes of investors means that what you have to offer is *seriously* different than the school of goldfish that is available today. If what you’re trying to push doesn’t meet that goal, then you won’t be taken seriously.

In short, versioning (in any aspect) is usually directly proportional to innovation, or at the minimum something new.

Dipshit, there’s a “d” in granDma. If she’s as smart as you, I don’t care what she’s grasping. WTF are they teaching in schools now?

~sigh

Agree.

But then I never thought the term had much traction in any case.

Web2.0 is not dead as it has not fully matured. Matured in respect to innovators. It has nothing to do with popularity.

The term marketing or not embodies the spirit of change and innovation within the last 10 or so years in respect to the web. Thus improvements. It has nothing really to do with specific type of company or product but more of a synergy.

The article is misleading and total bull shit. Mike do not allow such shit on this site anymore :)

well – The main reason is that Web2.0 is now :) It’s kind of the fad phenomenon – But for such technical paradigms, even after the buzz around that word dies down, there would still continue to be the effect on the area of science it affects. people are not much interested now inthe word ‘web2.0′ but more around what it signifies !

Ever notice that people who call other people “idiot” on the internet frequently display their own inadequacy?

The word you were looking for is “proved”.

I don’t think that parameter is adequate to declare it dead, by this time most of people know what the word “web2.0″ means then why they will search for specific keywords.?

[...] over By Anja Merret It’s great to see some sense being written every now and then. An article on TechCrunch discusses the death of Web 2.0. And the reasoning is based on search traffic recorded [...]

I called it in 2006 (and 1998): http://ideasonideas.com/2006/06/web-2-is-bull

My use (and understanding) of Web2.0 was kind of ambiguous, but somewhat related to “user generated content” for the community.

In other words, sites that went beyond brochureware to giving content to the community, from the community. Digg, Delicious… etc. Social networks provide content not from the sponsor or admin, but from the users.

To me that is what web 2.0 is/was.

In my product development we tag any new work orders that are based around user generated content as 2.0, simply because of that …

am I missing other significant meanings of web 2.0?

Jason Alba
CEO – JibberJobber.com
Career Management CRM

I also am glad that the incredible phenomenon known as “Tags” died along with it.

What kind of idiots said “I tweet therefore I am”

Idiots.

Tags are a way to organize, but people (including TC) got too excited. I don’t want to add a seesmic video comment, i dont want to facebook connect. This all slows down my life….

I don’t think it matters if we call it the social web, today’s Internet, Web 2.0, or anything else. It hasn’t died because of the depression we’re in. And Web 3.0–or whatever you want to call that–won’t emerge because of the depression.

Web 2.0 will not ‘die’ until the underlying services that make it up are of lesser importance than the new services that compose the next hugely different use of the Internet.

#4 city: Pleasanton, CA, represent!

You gotta figure either:

a) There’s some large ISP interconnect for silicon valley in Pleasanton.

b) Pleasanton’s population of 60K searches for “web 2.0″ over and over.

c) John Madden is looking for a career change.

https://twitter.com/w30/ is picking up.

And now… what are we supossed to do with the Web 2.0 Expo wich is a Tc Sponsor?

If i were an organizer of the event a would not like this post… While paying 10k a month.

Yep, now the new term is “social media”. But with every new and popular catch phrase it eventually gets used to death. It seems every random follower I get on Twitter is a “social media marketer”. I’ve gotten to the point where I don’t even follow these folks back. It seems if you want to get into online marketing you’ve got to proclaim yourself a social media marketer and join Twitter. Anyway, the Google trends for social media is much sharper than “web 2.0″ ever was:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22social+media%22&ctab=411271936&geo=all&date=all

Hey nitwit, we never let advertisers get in the way of our content.

:)

[...] How about you? via techcrunch.com [...]

Totally agree…

Had enough with READ-WRITE web, time to move on to READ-WRITE-EXECUTE web (Web 3.0)….

http://www.livbit.com

FKYU! You rancid cloud of throne odor! If I prefer to spell granDma with a personal flair as in gran(minus d)ma then I shall do so in spite of the fact that a retard with a cranium full of crayons wanders about aimlessly about calling itself ‘dumbass’.

Granma
Granma
Granma

and… granma.!

[wave] lovyu GRANMA.

I think web 2.0 is a buzzword and reflects the rebound of the internet sector after the 2001 dot com crash. It also reflects the growth of cheaper servers that support cloud computing and the growth of user generated content in the form of social networks with Photo and Video sharing. The decrease in usage is likely due to the new use of social media and the ubiquity of myspace and facebook as a product and platform. Investors are always seeking new technologies and products and with the recession and time, the phrase web 2.0 has been used enough.

I don’t mind widget at all because it really is an effective way of describing all these “little apps”. But you’re right web 2.0 is completely bullsh.

If you’re a bizdev person please do not go into a meeting and say that you’re a “cutting edge, leader in class, social maven, web 2.0 company”.

I vomit in my mouth a little when I hear the term Web 2.0.

When I first heard it used I immediately thought…”I better start planning for the release web 2.0.1″.

Now I can remove the cheezy reflections from all of the logos I created during that period.

Good riddance!

It’s good that it is fading away. We had Web 1.0 and the strong companies survived, Yahoo, Amazon, Ebay, Monster, WebMd etc. We had Web 2.0 and Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Digg, Yelp and a few others will be around for a while (I like to leave out Myspace because it is so trashy).

But I feel like web 2.0 is not fading away because there is a bad economy, but more because there is a web 3.0 emerging. Everyone thought it would be the semantic web, it turns out that web 3.0 is mobile applications. With iphone and android apps etc. you have a whole new platform for the web. I think it will get bigger, and it will make some companies some money. People are showing a willingness to pay money (ok, small amounts of money) to download some of these apps.

I don’t like the whole web 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 label system, but if we are going to talk about it that way, let’s just say that mobile apps are web 3.0. Isn’t it obvious?

If web 2 projects all get launched as Beta, perhaps in web 3 we’ll be releasing Alpha versions?

I’m looking for the sequel to this one: “Web 2.0 dead, but not for lack of trying.”

ineffably so

The term was stupid and overused.

That said it did represent a different way of thinking of online interactions, and this has now become pretty ubiquitious.

As a result, it has become like another previous overused term e-commerce. Now very few people write about e-commerce since so much of commerce has simply BECOME e-commerce.

Now almost every major site IS web 2.0 to a greater or lesser degree.

That said, it seems to have been brilliant marketing for O’Riley and his conferences biz … one of the few web 2.0 businesses that actually seemed to make money.

Anjali Sen

We’re busy working on Web 4.0, which is twice as good as Web 2.0 (yup, just do the math! 2.0 + 2.0 = 4.0) Skipping Web 3.0 altogether…

Agreed. I’m using the ‘next web’ term at the moment as at better alternative. You never have to update it. Now lets hope Boris is easier than O’Reilly with that term :)

O’Reilly invented the term Web 2.0 around the same time the term SaaS took off in popularity because O’Reilly wanted to jump on the SaaS bandwagon but he was too late to own that term.

It’s just like O’Reilly invented the term Open Source because he wanted to eclipse the term FOSS and it’s negative connotations and then own the new term.

In both cases, O’Reilly quickly went off and created successful technical conferences around his new terms.

So, if you have a great idea for a computing paradigm shift new term, go see O’Reilly first and ask him what he wants to call it. It will save you a lot of time and angst.

Amazing. Dozens of people answering, giving reasons, explanations, rants, raves and counterpoints. Through all that, no-one actually bothered to note that the data that is displayed here shows that while there’s been a dip in search volume, the search term is still more popular than it was in late 2005/early 2006, the height of its popularity.

I don’t care about Web 2.0. But if anyone creates another acronym with the word “oriented” in it, I’m going to feed them to the lions.

Examples:

Objected Oriented Programming
Service Oriented Architecture

I think you have to be British or something to appreciate the “oriented” nuance, because it’s so cool, clever, intellectual, and superior.

Agree with some others here. The term got annoying, but the phenomenon it was meant to define, namely a more interactive experience online, with users contributing to and improving the web as they went, was very real and paradigm-shifting (to use another slightly annoying term ).

I have been saying this Web 2.0 bubble for sometime now. Well, at least my view has been confirmed. There are too many “me-too”, duplicates, no-business-model, and crap-shoot startups funded apparently by some major VC firms. To make the situation worse, most of these Web 2.0 startups are not “IPOable”. Their only exit strategies are M&A by firms like Google. Yahoo. Ebay, and others are not in a position to acquire those startups. In this economic downturn which could last for many years, they are only zombies.

Lame post. web 2.0 is a great descriptor for everything that has happened since the dotcom crash, any 20 year-olds on here remember that? Oh, you were in 5th grade. Before you slam it why not come up with something to replace it instead of just whining and running around like a chicken with your head cut off.

You see that gigantic white spot on the third graphic? Ironically, that’s Africa for those who don’t know of it. It’s a market that to date has been completely ignored by the net due to paltry landline connectivity.

Web 2.0 was bound to die off. I offer up Web Free as the next iteration and it will be a heavily mobile-driven web and include the African market of one billion people.

http://www.maneno.org/eng/articles/the_web_free_web_30_starts_in_africa/

-miquel

interesting facts

[...] I recently read an article in TechCrunch by Robin Wauters… http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/02/14/the-death-of-web-20/ [...]

Here’s another website that covers successful web 2.0 startups – http://www.iamweb2.com

Check out the trendlines for “web 2.0″ vs. “twitter”:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22web+2.0%22%2C+twitter&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

This article is about calling a industry name dead because it isn’t used alot now, so is that like saying in 2007, that the afghan war was over as we had more search hits on iraq war. Lets just base all our decision making on a Search Engine/location engine.

New apps developed with Ajax, Java…will continue, call them Web App, Web 2.0, Cloud App, Server based application…so what, it is this industry that keeps the blog site alive…so if no mentions of TechCrunch this year via search on Google, then this sites value to public is less, or worthless?

Hi Anjali,

Love your blog and the concept behind it.

P

[...] The Death Of “Web 2.0″ | TechCrunch [...]

I wrote a post about that not too long ago. the web is just a huge communications channel with many subchannels (blogs, wikis, forums, listserve, YouTube, LinkedIn, Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, etc.). Each of these subchannels can serve a different purpose in your communications strategy. Call em Web 2.0 if you like but they’re still just tools for you to use effectively…or ineffectively.

Web 2.0 was mainly a catchphrase coined by people who really didn’t understand the internet very well, IME.

The next web will be here at the same time with html 5 and will be called Web 5.0

You heard it here first

Hardly a quality analysis. You’re missing the point … it’s not that anything is ‘fading’ – it’s just evolving. Web 2.0 isn’t the same as what it was 2-3 years ago, because it was so new and so of course 1 in 3 start-ups during that period were focused on web 2.0. Now, however, we’ve moved on from that ‘newness’ and we’re looking at the next step in the overall evolution, such as health 2.0, social media 2.0, cloud computing, etc, etc, etc. You’re assessment is like saying ‘pen and paper’ are fading. Perhaps they aren’t searched much because they are such a common part of life that people don’t need to search about them. Same thing with web 2.0 … it’s become the norm.

It began as “marketing jargon” and exploded into the new “false guru” term for baiting hot new suckers. It was falsely misunderstood because it was so widely used by people who make search terms like this seem dirty and useless.

It just wanted to be an adjective to describe the changes on the Internet because of the popularity of user based content and social networking as a tool to a better online experience for all.

As far as marketing, it should have always been treated as a free tool for branding and sharing ideas and skills with potential future markets NOT as a free classified advertising/opportunity pitching utopia or a “money making idea.”

My favorite example of greed induced stupidity were the various attempts at “social networking income opportunity programs.”

I, just last night, went into a little spasm on a YouTube guy who sent me a video “commercial” trying to get me to believe that what people REALLY need is a chance to be able to pay for another poor MySpace/YouTube “revolutionary” social network despite all of the robust FREE choices already available.

It’s always about “capitalizing on hot trends” with so many fools out there.

Personally, I was never any ad or salescopy genius myself so “web 2.0″ was my friend. I learned to do business online while happily avoiding “selling and promoting” like I was taught.

It is a lovely tool when you never bring a pitch or product promotion directly to the social media danger zones.

lol

He’s referring to the ad for the Web 2.0 Expo.

The term ‘Web2.0′ itself is very abstract – it should be defined by Tim but now it’s too late because it is gonna dump in archives – May be web3.0 or something else might come.
But still in some developing countries, It is uncommon among the common people.

so is it really the end of web 2.0 ?

I just took a huge widget

[...] Awwwww!  Poor Tim O’Reilly!  You mean the value of his trademark “Web 2.0″ is wo… [...]

I so totally agree with Robin. No, I wouldn’t miss it if it were never used again. And yes, as a matter of fact I do kinda have something against the term. Let me explain why.

In my opinion the web was always about whatever web 2.0 is about. I mean, the web was intended to be as it is now, or must I say as to what it is evolving to. Men (*) wrote about the web long before it was even established and they (*) foresaw this evolution. Web 2.0 was not a new thought or thing whenever the term was coined. It was just that in a certain point of time somebody (*) coined a term that confirmed good progress in the evolution of technology. The web has been 2.0 from the beginning and gradually maturing. One could say that the web had aged significantly from the point the term was coined or started to be picked up by the majority of people that use the net.

To me the term is not dead, it simply never existed.

The net is and will always be the web, never a newer version but constantly evolving. A newer version is an upgrade of something, made by a team (of developers) and released at a certain date untill it is outdated and replaced by the newer version.

Obviously, I am an idiot, or if you prefer, a “Douche Bag 2.0″
The 3.0 version is equivalent to “retarded” which is coming up on my next comment….

he’s talking about O’Reilly… currently running TC sponsor ad for Web 2.0 Expo SF conf in April.

fwiw, it’s evidence of editorial integrity.

next up: Robin rips into MediaTemple & Rackspace “Cloud Computing is SO over already…”

;)

R.I.P. Good Times = R.I.P Web 2.0

Mike allows anything that would entertain visitors. This “article” is less than useless and uninformative. The writer… seems to believe that these marginal topics are somehow relevant to… What? Although he is fairly consistent when it comes to post this kind of crapola.

I find some people who do not understand the term Web 2.0 using it a lot. Web 2.0 is over and is over 1 years ago. This is something that hardcore, command line linux coders with no graphic skills are still trying to achieve. This is also something so-called Social Media experts and fake consultants with no technical skills blast on.

I guess any Marketing term like this is bound to fade. At first it’s exciting, but soon everyone wants to use it and ends up stretching it beyond recognition until the users get frustrated and move on. I mean, everyone has a different view of “Web 2.0″ because so many have warped the term to fit them. Like B2B.

I’m worried Cloud Computing (which seems to be anything from Gmail to Grid, depending on who you ask) is going to face the same fate.

Lou, I’m pleased to award you with the Crunchie for Best Comment.

Nice.

All these marketing terms are just used to simplify things some people don’t really understand. And of cause to make money.

Bullshitter: “Hey. Can you give us founding for this cool internet company we’re planning?”

Investor: “No way! You cheated me already with the new economy.”

Bullshitter: “No wait! This is new! It’s the Web 2.0! Now everything is social, user-generated content, crowdsourcing, long-tail, viral, widgets, apps!!! Are you stupid not understanding this???”

Investor: “Here’s the money!”

Web 2.0 was nothing more than a bandwagon. The “innovation” was limited to the natural evolvement of Web properties. The only visionaries were the few who managed to create businesses from this evolution. By business I mean companies that MAKE MONEY.

Everything else is just a hobby. The side benefit of the death of Web 2.0 is that the VC community is once again remembering that Ivy League business school plans suck and investing in true software/hardware technology and infrastructure innovation is where it’s at. Developers and geeks around the valley are rejoycing.

and yes, I meant to misspell rejoicing just to annoy my hbs prof.

how can someone declare a term dead just because people are searching less for it…wht rubbish

It’s been years and web 2.0 isn’t a term most of my friends know. They call it the web. And for them, some of it has blogs. Some of it does cool stuff that they expect it should be doing & improving upon.

More and more, techies may call it “the web” again, and reference specific technologies on their own.

seeing as twitter the “hottest and most greatest startup of alltime” just got thirty five million. i’ll say web 2.0 is alive and well.

Perhaps it is just that the TERM “Web 2″ is dying. But I think the phenomenon survives.

I prefer simple, concise terms such as “Web 2″ over bureaucratic phrases such as “…user generated content in the form of social networks…”

Maybe “Web 2″ is dying, and another simple, concise, zen-like phrase will arise to describe what’s next – a phrase representative but not definitive, such as “Web 2″.

maybe people are not searching for it anymore because they know what it is. That has nothing to do with the death of it.

[...] today I read a post entitled “The Death of Web 2.0”   A well written post by Robin Wauters over at TechCrunch, it addressed the declining [...]

[...] today I read a post entitled “The Death of Web 2.0”   A well written post by Robin Wauters over at TechCrunch, it addressed the declining [...]

Yikes – the graph does not really support the death sentence since there are far more total searches now, so the number of “Web 2.0″ searches is probably up over time so only the prop of the total is down which probably reflects people moving on to buzzier themes to describe what we all now accept as a major shift to an online experience where *people* and socializing are more integral than the more technological and data-driven aspects of online life. A Web 2.0 by any other name still smells as significant to me though it’s certainly time to move on to the most fertile ground which is better direct and indirect integration of we humans and them internets.

Maybe it’s not being searched for as much these days because everyone who has a reason to find out about it already has.

A drop in search frequency probably points to a saturation point – a point where the concept has entered the social-digital consciousness – rather than people losing interest in the concept as a whole.

“Web 2.0″ – is a term, not a property/location. Google is being used like a dictionary.

Please start using: Web675-309

or

Web 808.

Thanks.

[...] special thanks to TechCrunch for the information used in this [...]

Happy to see it go! I did some similar analysis on terms like business intelligence and cloud computing:

http://www.lucidera.com/blog/index.php/2009/01/23/bi_keywords/

Techcrunch is hilarious. It’s become nothing more than a constant pompous head lines and then fake comments with people conveniently advertising where they are from. Looks like the “death” of Web 2.0 is ushering in the “death” making a living reporting on it.

John Modaga
CEO – Some Website

On the design side of things, it refers to the whole “glossy, simplistic, everything has a reflection on it” sort of look.

The term itself can be pretty helpful. When a client calls me up and says “I want it to look very Web 2.0″ I know exactly the style they’re looking for.

A fair amount of designers think it’s going out of style…but not from what I’ve seen…things seem to be evolving to be even glossier and more refined.

I’ve always hated the word widget. Especially in school when a finance professor or someone would say it. “Let’s say your company makes widgets.” What the hell is a widget? How totally uncreative are you that you can’t think up a fictional product? Gum. There. How hard was that?

Please , please, please come back Arrington. Your little web site has turned to shit!

Look at the rubbish they are writing abut now!

[...] Entrei no Digg hoje e logo na primeira pággina havia um link que apontava para um post entitulado The Death of “Web 2.0″.  Criado por Tim O’Reilly em 2004, o termo vem sendo usado para distinguir as novas [...]

Sensational journalism at work! And if you notice, the author properly put the quote around “Web 2.0″. So people, don’t argue over nothing. It has matured and anything Web 1.0 is now ancient and anything Web is Web 2.0

I don’t think we’ll go with Web 3.0 or any other subsequent numbers. Maybe Mobile 2.0?

Being in San Francisco, Web 2.0 seems a part of every tech start-up’s tag line. Lots of cool services or interesting knock-offs, but all new ideas with old tech. Who knows what the near future of our mobile computing lives will be called, but know it is mashing-up multiple new technologies (LBS, GIS, augmented reality, 3D web, etc.) Web2.0 is going the way of VHS.

IMHO

Yeah and I also see ads appear about this thing called CrunchBar! I’m going to butcher that one next.

Web 2.0 is Dead: What’s next?…

 
I just came across this article and though it was interesting. I have sort of had this feeling all through last year that web 2.0 seems to have come and gone. I think there are still a few people who just started hearing about it but just because it…

Ok weirdo, you’ve firmly established that the word ‘granma’ and ‘web number.number’ unhinges your already tragically broken mind.

Is it really necessary to accessorize your highlighted insanity by posting tripe and fiction under my moniker?

Your loserhood is a disease- get some treatment.

Hasn’t Web 2.0 just become “the Web” ie. the norm?

The numbers don’t matter. They just describe phases in the constantly evolving web and that will continue.

what’s up with all the despising, terms simply cover a domain, get used to it.

I never really liked the term “car” or “air” for that matter.

Bring on the semantic web.

I always thought web 2.0 was stupid becuase it was to be powered by people (Stupid people) It starts of good but then the masses get a hold of it and it becomes a big mess.

in my option, web 2.0 is now baked into the internet

the internet has tipped into its current incarnation from 2.0 concepts, tools and technologies.

web 2.0 was never a concrete thing…and now the name is fading away as the ideas behind it become more in line current strategy

[...] The Death Of “Web 2.0″ . [...]

See? I told you…. Can’t keep up with myself!
I suffer from wild oral diarrhea. Yikes!
Got to clean the keyboard, again!

Someone above mentioned Web 2.0 as a designer word that clients use. Clients are just now seeing the usefulness of blogs when the buzz 4 months ago is that the blog is dying.
Two different worlds.
Us geeks who read this stuff, ask the questions like this on Twitter & then there are the normal people who are still afraid to put their head shot up on the web in fear that it will be photo-shopped w/the body of Pam Anderson (ummm, btw: I would volunteer my picture for that any day).

130+ comments for a Valentine day post (and counting). I’d say this is actually a smash hit… or that we all need to get a life. :)

[...] kill his Web 2.0 Conference, or at least, to rename it, based on a recent post in TechCrunch titled The Death Of “Web 2.0″.  According to Robin Wauters …. “… the number of startups that contact us and [...]

[...] the irritatingly overused euphemism, not the socio-technical phenomenon. Techcrunch is reporting on a marked decrease in the amount of marketing material they get that includes the pesky term. [...]

Usenet, Email, Web 2.0, and Abe Vigoda all have a few things in common. Besides being wildly popular in their time, they are a popular topic for ill informed predictions of death.

Isn’t an archive and syndication of that archive just a means to partially extend the effective lifespan or viability of an asset?

Is death really a completely accurate condition?

[ insert Pythonesque "I'm not quite dead yet" ]

What will happen is similar to how “World Wide Web” become deprecated in conversation, we’ll see Web 2.0 just fade into the background as some kind of legacy term.

Over time, the Interweb and other terms of endearment or meme quality will ablate the Web 2.0 varnish covering the coverage itself.

So, “the web” or “le web” (for those of you in France) will likely dominate for some time until mobile or smaller federated services like Facebook (see also: AOL Rainman) temporarily silo an amalgam of users of the time.

Just as Facebook is not “the web” and not “the Interweb” there will be the various services that represent the islands of interest and congregation. For many, this silo will be all there is. Shock and dismay lead to acceptance as these silos are torn down (or fall down) and are replaced with shinier and more youthful alternative silos (some with VC funding perhaps?).

Here’s to a time when the Internet buzz word du jour and related sources of frenzied coverage and predictive obituary are just as banal and commonplace as running water, that ancient concept known as broadcast analog Television, and re-runs of Barney Miller (now available on iTunes).

Agile Cyborg,

I wonder what sewer lid they scraped this malformed parasite from? The thing is obviously famished for attention so deny it this single ray of hope and it will crawl back into its wasteland.

-Filonov

The term “Web 2.0″ does not really identify anything specific, so it doesn’t pull a lot of weight. Wikipedia’s definition of Web 2.0 starts with “changing trends in the use of World Wide Web technology”. Notice “changing trends”, and read that as “a moving target”. So, using “Web 2.0″ can begin to focus the reader, but more specifics need to be used to uniquely identify a particular topic.

I think it’s different with cloud computing as it really describe something concrete and I believe in its further development and spread.

Are you hitting on me?

(And that’s Mr. Natick to you, by the way)

web 2.0 isn’t dead it never materialized.. nothing but hype. Just now do we see startup actually doing a 2.0 thing.

[...] The Death Of “Web 2.0″ (tags: news business articles article web2.0 web google trends) [...]

Doesn’t everyone call the “death” of something when there is not much more to write about? Seems like writers need attention, so the “death” brings comments like this on here to make more money for the guys that started the perception there was a trend.

whoa. I got suckered again.

Obama 2.0 hopefully is around the corner, cause Obama 1.0 has killed everyone but him so far.

[...] The Death Of “Web 2.0? – A sure sign that “Web 2.0″ is becoming mainstream, Robin Wauters pulls together statistics showing the decay of the term’s popularity. [...]

Maybe business folks will be glad to see the back of Web 2.0, especially as the vast majority of sites that were launched during this Web 2.0 era, had no real value attached to them. Even though the hype bubble was gigantic and universal.

Of course the hype was good, even though the important numbers were always terrible.
At the end of the day will Facebook, YouTube or even Twitter ever earn any decent revenues.

The next era of the Web will be more of an evolution than a revolution.
It will be mix of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0.
As to its eventual ‘Branding’ – its over to Tim O’Reilly and the boys.

Oh man I hope that’s satirical.

So the marketing-abused term is losing steam due to overuse. Moving along.. nothing to see here.

I beieve that “Web 2.0″ was a working title. Something people used for a set of phenomenon, philosophies, and practices which they couldn’t quite put their finger on.

Perhaps the decline in it’s use as a technical term stems from people starting to get it for it’s bits and pieces, cloud computing, social media, etc.

Notice how less people need explaining to, when using the term outside the usual ‘early adopter’ circle?

[...] says “Web 2.0″ is dead? The recent TechCrunch article that is being Dug like forest fire has quoted in their heading that Web 2.0 is dead. They [...]

[...] back to the TechCrunch email, I scrolled down, the headline of the second article rose to view. “The Death of ‘Web 2.0′”. A fine article, I must [...]

[...] The Death Of “Web 2.0″ [...]

The Death of eCommerce.

Since 2004 according to google interest in eCommerce has declined 60% (http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=%22ecommerce%22&cmpt=date)

Does this mean that eCommerce is dead? Of course not, it’s just become an increasingly meaningless term and the concept becomes more ubiquitous. Same as Web 2.0.

I am sad how much hype this article has had on popular bookmarking sites… Web 2.0 is dead, *cough* after this article gets to abuse the term for one last romp.

(1) it is just the meme “web 2.0″ that is dying. and it is only dying as a “novel inspiring concept” (= something somebody would want to google for). it is certainly not dead as a mainstream-term yet, quite the opposite. and mainstream = users.

“Web 2.0″ will really fade away when the microcontent-driven Web will find a new incarnation. probably around the hybrid Web that will emerge when mobile devices are really used to access Web 2.0 data.

For the next buzz-term (and i’m all for using buzz-terms as a shortcut and catalyst for conversation!) i put my money on “cloud”. Tim O’Reilly is surely preparing the “Cloud Conference”.

[...] positive about Polyvore, my account’ere. Finally while these bookmarklets may be considered Web 2.0 – that term doth not speaketh it’s name* ! While MySpace will use their PR strength to push time on site connsumer engagement, I’m [...]

You mean… like some sort of InterWeb?

“Web 2.0″ is self-contradictory. The real “advance” of Web 2.0 is the fact that software has advanced, for the most part, beyond the need for version numbers. Software is updated gradually over time, with no major releases anymore. “Agile process” has helped encourage this release-often-and-incrementally mindset, and the transition of major software features from individual releases to online services, where releases can be made without major fanfare on a regular basis.

Maybe the new hot fad phrase should be “Agile Web”. Or, more accurately, “Web Today”, since tomorrow’s web could be completely different than today’s web — as today’s web is likely very different from yesterday’s.

…Paul

Seems to me that the term Social Network, is the new client subject line. If I hear 1 more time, that my client wants a social networking site, that actually upon inspection contains not a lick of social networking I’ll scream at them. Drives me crazy. :D

Mario, you hit it on the head. Its not “dead”, far from it. Its mainstream, and adds no extra information, hence the drop in usage.

Prehaps Web 2.0 is dying as a term because its most obvious expressions, like Facebook and Twitter, are now in the mainstream. We no longer need to use nerds vernacular to refer to it, as now everyone knows what we are talking about through the brands they’ve joined us in using.

All we’ve ever wanted is everyone joining in with Web 2.0 and now they’re here let’s not scare them off with pretentious geek talk!

Ian Hendry
CEO, WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz

Social media is taking place while web 2.0 is dying. seriously, we all still having fun.

[...] The Death Of “Web 2.0? (tags: web2.0) [...]

“Web 2.0″ was a working title for “social media”
which will have been a working title for …..

cultural evolutions rocks

Interesting that on the Google trends that the most searched in language is Russian.

I think that there are still vast tracts of the population who are not yet familiar with a web 2 or Interactive technology, Saas or whatever.

As for widgets in wikis – I love them lol

Callie

The Death of Web 2.0 is somewhat exaggerated…

Robin Wauters on TechCrunch notes that the “Web 2.0″ hype is reducing (see graph above) and deduces this is equivalent to its death:

Judging by Google Trends, which shows how often a particular search term is entered relative to the total search v…

Web 2.0 is not a marketing term. Web 2.0 is the definition for the movement that is interactive web relationships. Some people have used it to market products but in an of itself it is not a marketing term.

Web 1.0 is not dead, it is just old fashioned. But, much like older actors, older comedians, old songs, and old cars, there is still a place for it. I started creating websites in 1995 and have created over 500 websites for myself since then, and I have not changed them much over the years. I have not found Web 1.0 sites necessarily make less money than Web 2.0 sites, what really matters is having good content. That being said, if I was talented at creating web 2.0 sites, then I would see no reason to keep creating web 1.0 sites. Web 1.0 is just what I know, and I am too lazy/unmotivated to learn all the new stuff.

I don’t support your philosophy of the death of Web 2.o.

Web 2.o is very much alive and thriving.

Have you noticed that “web” or “internet” on the same Google trend search follows the same pattern — albeit on a longer scale? Would you predict the same fate for web or internet technologies?

I wonder why there is so much of talk around jargon. I mean for anything that happens in the space, people will obviously come up with a word to convey it right. Whether its social media or web2.0 or widgets or whatever!
Whats sad though is how most people throw around jargon without really knowing what it is at all … and I think thats 90% of people out there. I just met someone who calls herself a web2.0 catalyst … go figure what that is! :P

Web 2.0 is a despised term because its definition was never fully agreed upon. It represented different things to different people. However, the term did serve its purpose, in trying to corral the types of new technologies and companies that were popping up. It was a decent placeholder for many things new that we hadn’t yet categorized yet.

Mr Wuaters,

You are a genious and a visionary!

Bravo

Robert

[...] The Death Of “Web 2.0″ So why do I say it’s fading? For one, because the number of startups that contact us and include the term Web 2.0 in the subject line or message is visibly dropping (and that’s a good thing), and I hardly ever see it mentioned anymore on other technology blogs and news sites either. That’s not really tangible, so I took a look at the number of mentions of the phrase across the web, and they seem to be decreasing significantly, reflecting my feeling on this. [...]

People will continue to coin new terms and early adopters will carry the bandwagon around. As for me, I’ve never liked the term, “Web 2.0″ because it spawned everything else as a sequel.

Here’s a blog post of mine from last fall where I argue against versioning the web: http://ariwriter.com/2008/11/top-10-reasons-why-versioning-the-web-is-silly/

I’m glad to hear the term is dying off.

People who hate the term web 2.0 are as big idiots as the people who use the term web 2.0

I have a new term for you “Technotard” it describes a delusional moron who thinks commenting on TechCrunch is a marketing tactic and that tagging the word locator on to other words is innovative.

I really dislike the entire “2.0″ thing for a laundry list of reasons — ranging from the fact that it’s marketing hype to the fact that I don’t think it’s literally accurate (I think if we were truly going to consider the various “versions” of the internet, we’re well past #2 at this point). I, for one, will be happy to see it go, so that other, more meaningful descriptions can be explored. Right now, it’s still too trendy a phrase for others to compete with it. It’s going to have to die down a bit before anything more meaningful stands much of a chance of catching on. Thank goodness.

[...] at Google Trends, the term “Web 2.0″ started being used at the end of 2004, when Tim O’Reilly organized the first edition of the Web 2.0 [...]

Using the term “Widget” is better than “doo-hickey” or “thingy”

Web 2.0 was more of a promotional term used to boost social media and networking. Since it has saturated in the internet community it’s become a normal aspect of most users daily internet use. There really is no need for the term anymore, hence the drop in exposure from media which in turn has caused less curiosity from users in it’s uses/definition.

[...] death of Web 2.0 – [via Techcrunch] Posted by Matt Filed in [...]

The term “Web 2.0″ and the concept are distinctley different.

I feel part of the problem was that the majority of people either had no idea what it meant, or gave it their own definition. The latter just caused confusion and eventually indifference to the term.

So, while the term has diminshed, the concept continues to thrive.

Just look at the break-neck growth of social media sites such as Twitter…

“Whatever you want to call it 2.0″ will conitnue to change the way society uses the web, shares information and connects with one another.

[...] How about you? via techcrunch.com [...]

Sophisticated info and worthwhile :)

If the term web 2.0 were a fad… despising it would definitly be the new one!

If the term web 2.0 was a fad… despising it is definitly the new one

[...] 또 다른 의미로 웹 2.0이라는 용어 자체가 시들해지고 있다는 소식을 전해왔습니다. 웹 2.0이라는 용어가 들어가면 컨퍼런스도 잘되고 [...]

[...] genius is TechCrunch – the leader of Web 2.0 cheerleading – is declaring it’s own death and that of Web 2.0 (the best post TechCrunch has had in a year.) I guess Mikey is still busy wiping spit off his face [...]

Wait … didn’t TC already declare Web 2.0 dead months ago?

http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/10/10/an-ignoble-but-much-needed-end-to-web-20/

So, now TechCrunch deletes non-offensive comments which espouse a different view than the author?

Cool. I’ll find a tech review site with more integrity and drop you from my reader.

I also know that you’ll delete this comment, because it’s the exact same tone as the two you deleted which criticized the article and the author. Meanwhile, ad hominem attacks are left in the comment thread.

Classy.

The web already is rwx. What do you think happens when you click Search at the of this page? Your browser requests to *execute* a search program!

Why Asian Love Web 2.0?…

Who does search the keyword of “Web 2.0″ in the world? Surprisingly it was Korean according to a result of Google Trends in 2006. Of course, South Korea and Seoul were also highly ranked in this period.

But, I thought it was bias caused b…

If there are no searches for TechCrunch this year via Google… yes, it probably would mean TechCrunch had become worthless and was no longer relevant to the world.

[...] Moralí Torres en Febrero 15th, 2009 Ha sido recientemente Robin Wauters quien ha pronosticado la muerte de la Web 2.0 basándose únicamente en un descenso del  lanzamiento de startups y en el tráfico que genera el [...]

So whats Next? Web 3.0? If it is here is how it is Works : http://computer.howstuffworks.com/web-30.htm

Let’s not quiver over what to call something x.x.
I look forward to the trend to continue in peer to peer linkups, universal digital ID, and ease of forming close-knit groups for intense, multi-media interactions that will see even more dynamic realization of human understanding, technical advances, etc.

Paltry landline?

I think you mean:

Abundant landmine.

[...] Burdaki makalede detaylı olarak anlatılmış. Web 2.0 artık ölüyor. Bu kanıya varırkende Google Trends den de faydalanıp iddaayı daha bilimsel hale getirmişler. [...]

I don’t believe we are done with Web 2.x yet..
Yahoo started, Amazon, eBay, Myspace, Facebook, Ning, etc. refined and enabled people with gadgets, widgets, etc. Where have Yahoo & Google been ? besides buying up other startups that got ahead of them in some way? I like to see the day when every person can have A virtually-hosted personal gateway-landing page, from which all interaction with the outside world emanate. All sorts of customizable widgets can be dragged and dropped in place to create rich internet experience, anytime anyplace; without having to learn coding, or hiring some one to do it.

[...] http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/02/14/the-death-of-web-20/#comment-2625670 Tags: “core conversations”, sxsw Comment (RSS)  |  Trackback [...]

Felix A. is right.
“Web 2.0 was always a bullshitting term and everybody who was frequently using it prooved what an idiot he was.”

[...] Death of Web 2.0  [...]

You see descending in google trends because web2.0 LABEL isn’t interesting anymore.

[...] From the “oh FINALLY” file… By bjminihan http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/02/14/the-death-of-web-20/ [...]

social networking is twice as more popular as social media and is increasing at the same rate.

http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22social+media%22%2C+social+networking%2C+web+2.0&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

[...] Techcrunch abordou, neste final de semana, um assunto que já foi comentado aqui, no blog – o termo Web 2.0 está cada vez mais em desuso. Quase [...]

Proof that once again, I am what, in marketingspeak, is called a laggard. I only just recently understood what Web 2.0 means – such as the #motrinmoms debacle – & now it’s going the way of the dodo bird. Figures. ;-) LOL

PS to Dumb Ass Locator: LMAO! You, my friend, need help or to get laid, or something. And no I’m not volunteering. LOL!

Web 3.0? I’m still waiting for 7 minute abs.

What, Is everybody commenting on this article 12? Regardless, it’s been quite entertaining. I’ll have to stop by more often! LMAO!

I disagree with that. For me, web 2.
Won’t be dead. It will be alive forever…

As a lecturer in eMarketing my colleagues have occasionally suggested the ‘e’ should be dropped as it is all just marketing. I tend to agree with them except… most of them have never heard of Web 2.0. The move from traditional content publishing (on or offline) to user generated content is the most exciting (and disruptive) thing that has happened in media since the invention of the printing press. While I would not say user generated content is now mainstream, it is certainly getting that way. It is timely to retire the term web 2.0, but the impact will be felt for years to come.

Costa Rica Real Estate
http://www.costaricaeye.com

Το Web 2.0 πεθαίνει;…

Σήμερα καθώς έκανα surf στο internet μήπως δω τίποτα καλό μου τράβηξε τη προσοχή το post που έγραψε ο Robin Wauters στο Techcrunch, στο οποίο δε μιλάει για την…

Isn’t this article a description of the amount of people searching for the term web 2.0. Not really explaining its popularity being that now that I understand the term web 2.0 doesn’t mean that I will possibly search for the term as much. Where as if I didn’t understand it or hear of it so often I might search for it. Not sure if that made sense but what I am trying to state simply is web 2.0 is alive and well and cannot be determined by the amount of searches it gets in google insight search. What is cool about this article is it promotes google insight search to those who may not have been using it.

Web2 webshmoo

Tim O’Reilly has a great mind and is a true legend but couldn’t he think of a better name???

It’s just a term, and whatever version it i, it’s not gonna die. It’s just having a setback due to the current economy. :-)

The term was mostly used as business hype, as proven by the large usage in Singapore :o)

By 2010 we will be at Web 3.0 in any case – and Web 3.0 will be about the icommerce space. We’ve seen enough of social this and social that. The web is a social, entertainment, and business environment, and I’m betting the buzz swings away from social toward business.

[...] seems taboo to say Web 2.0 nowadays, but like it or not, Trackle is the Web 2.0 application that redefines the word TRACK. With [...]

This may all ready be in the comments but I find there is a lot of mis-understanding of what Web 2.0 is and your post does nothing to help clear the air, especially if you are going to include a picutre of Tim O’Reilly.

So, for me and I believe most people the Web 2.0 definition is:

the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the Internet as a platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/12/web-20-compact.html

Personally very glad to see this term ‘Web 2.0′ heading out of the spotlight, especially when job recruiters or agencies use it when prospecting for new employees.
Half the time, the term has not been used properly anyways!!!

The term “Web2.0″ would make sense if we think of the purpose it serves (forget the reason it was introduced, the definition is totally indigestible) – For marketers, it worked as a pretty effective abbreviation for “new age, rich UI, user friendly web apps that understands its users well and behaves accordingly …” etc.. And lets face it, most of today tech names have been coined for marketers and marketing in general. Software companies need such terms to be able to market their stuff claimed as built using “latest technologies” ..

Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools talk because they have to say something.

Plato

I rephrase …

Wise men talked because they had something to say;
Folks created the internet so they can talk more than a wise man which in terms would make them more popular and hence … wiser!

Keep dreaming folks

[...] The Death Of “Web 2.0″ I’m not going to discuss the economic meltdown and its devastating effect on technology companies and internet startups in this post, but rather something that crossed my mind earlier this morning: “Web 2.0″ seems to become more and more a void (and an avoided) term. Of course, that’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it is definitely apparent. [...]

‘Web 2.0′ was a trendy buzzword, but the technology still exists – and it’s strong as ever. More prevalent than ever too.

[...] It was always a little gauche and had no shortage of detractors and nay-sayers who hark back to the puritan days… but apparently the final nail is being hammered into the coffin for “Web 2.0”; the “buzz�…. [...]

[...] “Web 2.0″ gehört sicher dazu. Nun scheint seine Zeit aber langsam gekommen zu sein. Techcrunch hat dazu heute eine interessante Grafik via Google Trends gebracht: Die Häufigkeit der [...]

The death of Web 2.0 = the death of Techcrunch?

Neanderthals were born, performed some work and became extinct as a more effective and adaptable lifeform of the same genus was born. Everything from the web has a reason for being there and a time slot.
Web 2.0 was more a philosophy rather than a new technology or new innovation. The innovation lay in people being able to air their views, opinions, have discussions “online” and more “visible” rather than just via emails. That was the new generation, which has grown and spawned different ideas. RIP are OK to write, but like every form has a reason to be here and plays a particular role, unknown to itself at times, so too have such sites. How would we all know who has said what in a public forum, if something like this was never pushed via RSS feeds and search engines and a specific tag saying web 2.0 info?

[...] Leia matéria completa > [...]

I hated the term web 2.0 the first time I heard it, and I still hate it today. You don’t need to “brand” what are minor incremental improvements in the world wide web. It is not a good descriptor, and it really doesn’t mean anything. It was basically a way for Oreilly to sell tickets to a lame conference.

[...] Geez, I just got a grip on Web 2.0 and now it’s almost “officially considered dead“. Web 3.0 isn’t taking off very fast so maybe that gives me time to catch up on the [...]

[...] I chanced upon this article by Robin Wauters, where he provides his insight on the current state of the Web 2.0 concept. As you will see for [...]

Web 2.0 has included a series of “micro-innovations” for better or worse.

The low barrier of entry for both technology & funding facilitated this environment.

A start-up widget company has another start-up integrated on top of it and another start-up integrated on top of that, etc.

Let us hope that in these dark economic times that the base level service that is the foundation for these start-ups upon start-ups does not crumble!

[...] 2.0, one of the top technology buzzwords for the past few years, now appears to be losing popularity. According to the TechCrunch article, recent statistics from Google are showing a drop in the [...]

Well, I think terms like Web 2.0 which don’t have an obvious meaning get searched for quite a bit in the beginning of the term. When you read a new term that you would like to know more about you search for it and find out what it means. After so long, most people have seen the term and no longer need to search for it – they know what it means. Granted, as media uses the term less, fewer people will hear the term and know to search for it.

Ditto. What’s in a name? I love to talk, I love to read. But Farnham is a short speak freak. “Web 2.0″ costs a lot less in Twitter space than “Interactive Internet HTML and XML media utilizing Linux, Apache, MySQL, and PHP enabled Services in which Ajax, Java and other communications protocol enable effective multiple networking thereby encouraging the establishment of communities of online collaborators discussing issues of common interest…” Well, you get the idea. ;-)

Google isnt the end all be all of market research. It is simple one quantifiable user generated public storage facility. It is the epitome of the web 2.0, because without user generated content and the search for it Google would have NOTHING. Google ISNT in the search engine business, they are in the ADVERTISING business, so without web 2.0 and the user generated content they server, there would be NO GOOGLE.

The fact that web 2.0 is searched even less now means for me that it went from a cultural marketing fab/ploy to being instilled in our daily lives. So many more people know what it is now that they dont need to search and find out what it is.

No longer are we hyping up the 2.0 world because we’re living it!

The problem with Web 2.0 is people do not understand it is a theory rather than an actual implementation of something.

[...] in Silicon Valley may be amused by me saying “Web 2.0,” given that the term seems to be gasping for its last breath, but in the legal world we’re a bit behind the times when it comes to technology.  After [...]

Death is the final stage of a regenerative cycle. Google Trends search curve shows us an excellent representation that Web 2.0 has enter the final stage of the innovation adoption curve as defined by Rogers.

felix got it right on…
its 2002 no one wants to hear web anymore…
no wait this is web 2.0 and now it all looks bright…
i wont be surprised to hear a new term ‘ housing 2.0′ soon

[...] Robin Wauters บรรณาธิการของ Techcrunch [...]

Ding dong, Web 2.0 is dead.
Shoot it straight in the head.
Ding dong, the hackneyed Web 2.0 is dead.

Being the first time i’ve heard of the term, i Googled it.

I hope you’re proud.

I don’t believe this drop off in the search for the term is a reason to believe web 2.0 has been put on the back burner. Rather, I think the general publics’ increased familiarity with the topic has led to a reduction in people who feel it necessary to learn about web 2.0 through searches. Any thoughts?

But hey: The term “Web 2.0″ did the job for some clever people (with low morality standards though). So we can actually all be happy that it’s finally over.

Or isn’t it?

Everywhere I cast my gaze things are just fucking deathly. It’s like a Gothic revival.

MySpace is being KILLED by said app. Facebook is KILLING Twitter. Apps are DYING left and right from raging digital contagions. The DEATH of term A (web 2.0) is near. People want to SLAUGHTER venture capitalists. I made the last one up because it probably is true in some tortured mind out there.

This just all appears rather moribund…

I want my… I want my… I want my Web 2.0…

Maybe the Term or Marketing hype “web 2.0″ is not yet dead but just waning, the development style and methodology it has brought onto us has already left an indelible mark on how we design and development websites, applications and its UI.

Some people are still coping up with the this methodology and I don’t think we will be affected by the death or waning of the term.

This is by far the dumbest article I have read in a long time. The title was very intriguing to me and I was expecting to read a very intelligent and well structured article. However this was an article with absolutely no depth and instead written based on fluff. He doesn’t give any clear definitions of why it matters that web 2.0 is disappointing and although he obviously doesn’t like the term, he doesn’t seem to care why. I think he is just an arrogant man who lost some intelligence, pride, and academic position with the shift to web 2.0 so he is trying to recoil his “knowledge” or predictions by showing how web 2.0 is apparently disappearing. He is just an angry, senile man who is trying to act like he knows something, when it is clear that web 2.0 isn’t searched as much because people actually know what it means! Just because you like something doesn’t mean you continually google it. If you know it, you know it. Maybe that’s a reason why the term search has decreased.

[...] Robin Wauters บรรณาธิการของ Techcrunch [...]

[...] Web 2.0 is in terminal decline according to this techcrunch article. The basis of this statement is anecdotal and from Google Trends which show a declining use of the [...]

If you honestly believe “web 3.0″ won’t gain traction, I have a Big Three auto company to sell you.

Unfortunately.

Less searches either means people are getting less interested or it has already became integral part of our lives that everyone knows what it is by now. Kinda like brushing your teeth…not many people google brushing your teeth to seriously learn how to brush, right? That doesn’t mean less people are brushing their teeth?

You must be a genius.

“I’ve never had anything against the phrase “Web 2.0″” and you comment: “he obviously doesn’t like the term”.

Brilliant!

I’m with @rikin…what else are you going to call them?

And to REALLY send you into a tailspin, Tim, we have a slate of products and services that can only be described as Widget 2.0.

No, really. :)

[...] but the wave has crested.  At least that’s what the industry insiders are saying.  From TechCrunch, to CNET, to Sand Hill Road – the consensus seems to be that the 2nd wave of the internet has [...]

[...] Wauters on TechCrunch talks about the end of “Web 2.0″ as a term, and ponderswhat the decline in use of the term means (giving some evidence as to why [...]

[...] Web 2.0 stirbt jetzt langsam aber sicher [...]

[...] a music magazine.  It’s basically Flickr for Musos done really well.  And although Web 2.0 is dead, or at least ’so per se’ these days, I see is a shiny example of how to build a great [...]

web 2.0 is here to stay but whether ot not the buzzword continues to be used is another thing entirely

@Millions: it’s a pre-emptive strike against the morons and clowns in the class who would ask seemingly-relevant but ultimately pointless questions about the business process that are specific to the product:

* what if the ingredients go bad?
* what if gum isn’t popular that year?
* how many flavors of gum does the company make?

There’s at least one person in every class that will derail the discussion this way. In certain classrooms, not responding to these questions (or calling them too specific to be useful to the discussion, which is true) will inevitably demonize you (the teacher) as someone who plays favorites, or who refuses to answer “perfectly good questions”, or something like that.

Trust me… there’s a reason for being utterly vague and uncreative when speaking in the hypothetical.

–Naomi

[...] مطلبی در تک کرانچ خواندم که بسیار جالب بود، موضوع در مورد سقوط وب ۲ و ظهور [...]

[...] After my perfect travel,i have to focus on my goeshare to share more perfect informations to you.I just read an article from Techcrunch about web2.0.The title is The Death Of “Web2.0″ [...]

[...] This recent article from TechCrunch and a discussion at one of the seminars I attended at the Online Community Unconference East (which was great, by the way) has got me thinking about “Where is web 3.0?” [...]

people do not only search for web 2.0 – most of them just wanted to know what it is – and they know now.

so there is less reason to search for web 2.0

[...] Il Web 2.0 è morto, e neanche il cloud computing si sente tanto bene. L’ultimo chiodo sulla bara delle speranze che “in the cloud” si stia molto meglio che off-line è quello del semplice meccanismo psicologico della sopravvivenza, che anima o dovrebbe animare ogni utente, amministratore e CEO consapevoli del fatto che se il provider dell’ecosistema di servizi on-line va in bancarotta, o decide di cancellare l’account per un motivo qualsiasi (magari per un errore umano come successo con Google), i dati, i contenuti e il business svaniscono per sempre. O finiscono all’incanto post-mortem su eBay. [...]

[...] Web 2.0 is dead, and not even cloud computing is feeling very well. The last nail on the coffin of the hopes that “in the cloud” it feel much better than off-line is the one of the simple psychologic mechanism of survival, that livens or should liven any user, executive or CEO aware of the fact that if the on-line services ecosystem provider goes bankrupt, or decides to delete the account for whatever reason (maybe for a human error like happened to Google), data, contents and business disappear forever. Or end up being on a post-mortem auction on eBay. [...]

Kudos to Farnham…Web 2.0 beats the heck out of “New Web,”"Evolution(ary)Web,” or any number of colorful monikers. The decreased use of the “term,” only means that new developments, and the myriad of cool interactive functionality solutions are being adopted and accepted as “the norm.” Web2.0 will NOT go away, but only be replaced with “Web3.0″ or “VideoWeb” as the next evolution of customized, original, streaming video content, specifically scripted for the needs of clients… becomes the norm for websites. Static web is dead…or should be. Web2.0 and it’s incarnations are welcome…whatever you call them.

[...] descanso en mis drafts algunos días), 4 o 5 años después que el blog de Tecnología y negocios Techcrunch le quiere poner fin a la Web2.0 y es probable que muchos crean esto como puedo leer en los comentarios y Robin Wauters se lleve la [...]

I see it only as the “web” because it is a gradient that is constantly changing, not each one a single version. Every new feature that catches on is just yet another improvement (or often times a big fat failure).

[...] | The Death Of “Web 2.0? Tags: concepto, crisis, Evolución, redes, Startup, Web, Web [...]

Its really a nice article which talks about how many people misuse the term Web 2.0

Since I am from India and I am also from an Outsourcing firm, I can give you a good picture. Companies are using the buzzword just to impress the clients.

They dont even know Web 2.0 is a concept and not a technology.

But since Web 2.0 is famous and more people know it nowadays, the more important thing now for organizations is how to maximize their investments in Web 2.0

Hence a strategy to optimize (Social Media Strategy) is the way to go. If you look in Google Trends for social media, the search trend is increasing. I think this gives a better picture than the term Web 3.0.

This is just my thought process. Kindly let me know your views.

[...] los últimos días está cayendo el término web 2.0, se cree que es debido a la aparición de nuevos palabros. Tuitorial va cogiendo fuerza en la red, [...]

Interesting comment thread.
Also very interesting is the result of putting “internet advertising” in G-trends http://tinyurl.com/df8xz6

It appears that “internet advertising” isn’t even a topic of discussion…

[...] The Death Of “Web 2.0″ [...]

[...] reading a great article over at TechCrunch about the potential “Death Of Web 2.0“, it really got me thinking about the next new wave of internet goodness, “Web [...]

[...] hoje eu fui ler este texto aqui do TechCrunch chamado “The death of ‘Web 2.0′” do dia 14 de fevereiro, pouco mais de duas semanas antes deste post. Apesar do foco dele ser sobre [...]

Web 2.0 i.e. sites that allow user interaction and content management will not die. Just because less people are searching for it in Google doesnt mean it’s not popular.

Do the same graph for Facebook and you will see regular growth in interest.

When I have a subject to research on the net, I bookmark the useful sites for future reading. Then when i want to repeat later on I use my bookmarks far more than Googling the subject all over again. Thus I think Google searches peak before actual interest peaks.

Also Web2.0 was Googled far more in 2006 and 2007 because a certain % of people wanted to know what it meant; now they know, they don’t need to Google it.

Now they’re Googling sites that ARE Web 2.0 (ie “Twitter” & “Facebook” ) not actually Googling “web2.0″

Anyway Web 2.0 is just a label for a progression, i don’t believe techo progress will ever stop.

As for Web2.0 describing a style, well it might go out of fashion, but we won’t get retro instead.

Styles can only get nicer, cleaner, easier to understand and use, sharper, shiner, more 3d, more video, more impressive, more interactive, noisier, brighter, more amusing, more interesting, more addictive, etc…..

Thanks for the post. I like that you shared that Web 2.0 isn’t turning into Web 3.0 … or anything of the sort. You’re right, it’s simply the ‘Web’ as it is now.

As the Community Manager for the Web 2.0 Expo I want to reiterate what Tim O’Reilly does say about Web 2.0 – it’s the Web as a platform, and not a version number. Web 2.0 simply represents that it’s new and changing and constantly going to evolve, but all will adopt it and find new and meaningful uses for it.

Thanks,
~ Janetti
aka @Janerri

I so totally agree with Robin. No, I wouldn’t miss it if it were never used again. And yes, as a matter of fact I do kinda have something against the term. Let me explain why. In my opinion the web was always about whatever web 2.0 is about. I mean, the web was intended to be as it is now, or must I say as to what it is evolving to. Men (*) wrote about the web long before it was even established and they (*) foresaw this evolution. Web 2.0 was not a new thought or thing whenever the term was coined. It was just that in a certain point of time somebody (*) coined a term that confirmed good progress in the evolution of technology. The web has been 2.0 from the beginning and gradually maturing. One could say that the web had aged significantly from the point the term was coined or started to be picked up by the majority of people that use the net. To me the term is not dead, it simply never existed. The net is and will always be the web, never a newer version but constantly evolving. A newer version is an upgrade of something, made by a team (of developers) and released at a certain date untill it is outdated and replaced by the newer version.

I think Web 2.0 is not dying, rather being transferred to a new term called “cloud computing”.

I like that one… LOL Technotard. Fits in there with HitechRetard.

Wake up and Smell the Coffeee…

[...] Come faceva notare Robin Wauters qualche settimana fa su TechCrunch, il termine "Web 2.0" sta perdendo di importanza su Internet, in quanto viene sempre meno utilizzato sia da tutti quelli che operano nel settore tecnologico, sia dai blogs che parlano di tecnologia, sia dai siti di news che riportano notizie inerenti tematiche tecnologiche: ma anche gli internauti cercano sempre meno tale termine nei motori di ricerca, e ciò è dimostrato dai Google Trends per la keyword "Web 2.0". Non è così invece per quanto riguarda il termine "Social Media", un termine che a differenza dell’altro sta proprio ora raggiungendo il suo picco massimo per ciò che concerne le ricerche su Google (vedere i Google Trends per la keyword "Social Media"), nonché un termine il cui uso cresce costantemente da parte di chiunque (esperti di tecnologia, bloggers, giornalisti, imprenditori, consulenti, aziende, addetti al marketing, ecc.). [...]

Seems to me that most of anti “Web 2.0″ comes only from the web development industry itself…almost in a self loathing kind of way. It’s bizarre to me…what is the big deal? Nobody has come up with anything more descriptive. “Web 2.0″ nails it from my POV – we are living and working on a platform that is decidedly the next version of what we all called the ground during the 90′s. I’m not going to make any friends with this next bit…but what the heck: Dumping on the concept appears to just be cheap way of sounding smart.

[...] am I not surprised – didn’t they get the memo “The Death of Web 2.0” … [...]

Just See~

[...] is an article on Techcrunch published several days ago, named “The death of Web 2.0″. The author [...]

[...] 4, 2009 · Filed under Uncategorized Well, some techies might see this as sad, but technology is forever changing. This article discusses how the term “Web 2.0″ [...]

[...] autorização do autor para copiar trechos dele) Só hoje eu li este texto do TechCrunch chamado “The death of ‘Web 2.0′”, publicado no dia 14 de fevereiro, quase duas semanas antes deste post. Apesar de seu foco [...]

Another example of the technology industry creating new jargon to describe a new what it sees as market segment that can only grow, not difficult when you start at zero. However, when growth gives way to shrinkage then everyone flees to be in the next big thing growing from zero (although perhaps not quite so easy in the current economy). Other explanations, Web 2.0 has hit the trough of disillusionment (as in the Gartner hype cycle) or Web 2.0 has fragmented into many different more application or industry specific segments like CRM 2.0, Mobile 2.0 (even 3.0) etc and so the cycle repeats as these will also live (perhaps) and eventually die.

[...] hard:  Is this any worse an idea than anything that’s on the bailout agenda now?  Web 2.0 may be dead, but the underlying values of participation and collective intelligence are enduring concepts that [...]

[...] 2.0″ is now a hokey buzz word, but at one time represented a comprehensive approach to making web applications. This philosophy [...]

[...] Robin Wauters from TechCrunch: “Web 2.0″ seems to become more and more a void (and an avoided) term… the number of startups that contact us and include the term Web 2.0 in the subject line or message is visibly dropping… and I hardly ever see it mentioned anymore on other technology blogs and news sites either. That’s not really tangible, so I took a look at the number of mentions of the phrase across the web, and they seem to be decreasing significantly, reflecting my feeling on this. [...]

Well the trend for Web 2.0 search result could be down perhaps because more and more people now know what it stands for

[...] The Death Of “Web 2.0″ (tags: web2.0 business internet trends technology socialmedia) [...]

[...] Robin Wauters (techcrunch) si potrebbe addirittura parlare della morte del Web 2.0. Ma com’è possibile? Proprio [...]

[...] 2.0的熱潮會持續到何時呢？TechCrunh，在2009年2月發佈了一篇文章The Death Of 「Web 2.0〞，該篇文章的作者指出利用Google Trends 搜尋”Web [...]

[...] I came across some of the videos I recorded with Tim O’Reilly immediately came up to my mind this article that I read on Techcrunch a while [...]

[...] Tech Crunch (Em inglês, mas com muitos dados e informações) [...]

[...] I’ve arrived too late… post mortem, in fact. Robin Wauters at TechCrunch has already issued a death certificate for Web 2.0 – time of death February [...]

Yep, but what is after Web 2.0?

[...] heard the grumblings. Web 2.0 is declining, it’s so last year….no wait, maybe Web 2.0 is just dead. But is it really? Or has it just become so ubiquitous that it no longer needs a special label [...]

[...] heard the grumblings. Web 2.0 is declining, it’s so last year….no wait, maybe Web 2.0 is just dead. But is it really? Or has it just become so ubiquitous that it no longer needs a special label [...]

[...] heard the grumblings. Web 2.0 is declining, it’s so last year….no wait, maybe Web 2.0 is just dead. But is it really? Or has it just become so ubiquitous that it no longer needs a special label [...]

[...] heard the grumblings. Web 2.0 is declining, it’s so last year….no wait, maybe Web 2.0 is just dead. But is it really? Or has it just become so ubiquitous that it no longer needs a special label [...]

[...] heard the grumblings. Web 2.0 is declining, it’s so last year….no wait, maybe Web 2.0 is just dead. But is it really? Or has it just become so ubiquitous that it no longer needs a special label [...]

[...] heard the grumblings. Web 2.0 is declining, it’s so last year….no wait, maybe Web 2.0 is just dead. But is it really? Or has it just become so ubiquitous that it no longer needs a special label [...]

[...] heard the grumblings. Web 2.0 is declining, it’s so last year….no wait, maybe Web 2.0 is just dead. But is it really? Or has it just become so ubiquitous that it no longer needs a special label [...]

[...] heard the grumblings. Web 2.0 is declining, it’s so last year….no wait, maybe Web 2.0 is just dead. But is it really? Or has it just become so ubiquitous that it no longer needs a special label [...]

Interesting post – I’ve only just got into the whole web 2.0 thing but wow have I seen some results! By simply creating web 2.0 properties and linking those to your site you can receive a huge boost in authority and rankings.

I’ll be scaling this up to see what happens when I have lots of web 2.0 properties pointing to my site!

[...] is going to be while before next Web trend arrives but it seems like some experts are already saying goodbye to Web 2.0 and jumping to Web 3.0 already. Hold on to to your sacks [...]

[...] do irlandês de 54 anos o condena. Simplesmente pelo famigerado termo Web 2.0, cada vez mais em desuso. Sinceramente, Web 2.0 não existe e nunca existiu. O termo é redundante e muito próximo do que [...]

web 2.0 is dead already. when is the last time you searched a video at youtube? the results: random garbage. the internet in general is now the same as the public in general. most people…you really don’t want to meet them. and you don’t want to watch their shite on the internet. i was a big fan in the old days but now the web is pretty done. aside from google search and email.

[...] heard the grumblings. Web 2.0 is declining, it’s so last year….no wait, maybe Web 2.0 is just dead. But is it really? Or has it just become so ubiquitous that it no longer needs a special label [...]

[...] Kako god, mislim da je Web 2.0 od prošle godine definitvno u umiranju. Doduše to nije ništa novo, o tome se priča već neko vreme. Meni je druga stvar na umu, šta dolazi posle weba [...]

Web 2.0 was a term originally coined to describe the trend in sites that allowed users to create, share and discuss content, products, etc. Around the same time this trend was emerging, technologies such as Ajax began getting extremely popular and so people started thinking of it as a ‘web 2.0′ technology. The thing is, the word is dying because were already well into the age of web 2.0. People expects to be able to share and create content on sites, they expect flashy ajax powered interfaces… Web 3.0 is already at hand as well with many sites opening up there services via api’s. These terms have simply became irrelevant.

[...] of years into Web 2.0  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0) which has even been proclaimed dead (http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/02/14/the-death-of-web-20/) by lots of folks,   did we ever define  Web 3.0, and 4.0 ??  A lot of people call virtual [...]

[...] The impact of term Web 2.0 is shrinking? According to this article, the author drew this conclusion based on the Google trend analysis retrieved early this year, [...]

[...] iya, kalau menurut artikel di TechCrunch ini. Dengan melihat trend pencarian di Google yang menunjukan jumlah pencarian kata “web [...]

[...] The Death Of “Web 2.0″ (techcrunch.com) – February 15, 2009mdenny: reading “The Death Of Web 2.0″ – http://bit.ly/sELgl The article+comments = proof this topic is an imporant nothing. [...]

[...] heard the grumblings. Web 2.0 is declining, it’s so last year….no wait, maybe Web 2.0 is just dead. But is it really? Or has it just become so ubiquitous that it no longer needs a special label [...]

exelente pagina si desean verla no lo duden

[...] navegando navegando he encontrado un artículo de Febrero de 2009 que ya entonces pronosticaba la muerte de la web 2.0 basándose en Google Trends, y que personalmente he comprobado y puedo decir que en efecto a lo [...]

[...] All in all, we all know what follows Web 2.0 and it’s not going to be Semantic Web in curly quote marks. The technology is semantic yes but it won’t catch on neither Web 3.0 will according to the MIGHTY TechCrunch. [...]