Business

2.what?

The versioning trope is absurd for this reason....

Written by Mitch Ratcliffe, Contributor June 22, 2006 at 11:56 a.m. PT

Kevin Werbach, host of Supernova, introduced Mike Arrington, founder of TechCrunch, as the creator the destination for everything Web 2.0. Mike assembled a group of companies for the Supernova Connected Innovators presentations this evening.

But I still can't believe that "Web 2.0" is a viable name--the trends the name implies are real and will last--so why keep emphasizing the name? At some point, history and technology will leave this behind. "Web 3.0" is six years away and "Enterprise 3.0" is probably going to be a hot term next summer.

Mike does great work, but will he have to reinvent TechCrunch for "Web 2.1?" Imagine, someone will come along with their blog about "Web 2.1" or "Web 3.0" and they will argue that the very premise of TechCrunch is out of date.

Already, some of the ideas of Web 2.0 are patently repeats of Web 1.0 functionality built in a different programming language and on a new business model. God, get over it.

Gibu Thomas, CEO of Sharpcast began his presentation by listing what is missing from Web 2.0. Doesn't, by its very definition as a version of Web functionality at a certain point in time, Web 2.0 become obsolete once you add what is missing? The updated version would be Web 2.1. We're going to hate having to admit Web 2.0 is over, whether because someone comes up with a better name or the business models fail.

The versioning trope, which suggests that all evolutionary changes represent discontinuities or radical transformations, is absurd. We should drop it and not try to make more of the many fine innovations we're seeing, including here, tonight. Check out: