The Web2.0 Backlash Begins

Did you know, that the annual conference of Web2.0, the stage for consumer generated media, power to the people and general rah rah rah'ing of all things anti-coporate control costs nearly $3000 to attend?

Chris Heuer says ti's time to take back the revolution from big money, and is setting about organizing Web2.1.

I was really shocked when I went to register for the Web 2.0 Conference and found that it cost $2,800 to attend. This means that most of the real movers and shakers of this movement are not going to be there - which might be fine considering it is geared at a different audience and has a different purpose than a Gnomedex or BarCamp event. As a friend mentioned the other day, the leaders who will be there are either going because they are speaking, they received a comp pass from John or Tim because they are FooCamp worthy or because they are backed by VC's who are ponying up the cash (of course traditional multinational corps will also be willing to pay up).

As an unfunded Web 2.0 startup, without the juice to merit a comp pass, I wont be there

It is time for us to seize the reins of the evolution ourselves - it is time for us to let those big money interests have the Web 2.0 - it is time we launched Web 2.1

There's much to say along the lines of revolution, what fucking revolution? but i'll leave that for another time.

What's really astonishing here is that this conference, the absolute epitome of all things "us", and the bane of all things "them", is exclusionary, and is itself becoming "them", not "us".

After seeing that price tag, i hope Chris' little idea spreads, and that people really interested in the web2.0 movement do take it back from the greedy hands of corporate whores.


Finally I gave up reading

Finally I gave up reading on-screen and printed that Tim O'Reilly article. Fifteen pages in DIN A4 Format. Fifteen! That man's more verbose than I am. *lol*

Revolution Schmevolution

The real revolution I think is in regards to easy to use tools. When I first started writing on this last week I was not very clear in regards to what Web 2.1 would be if anything. In fact, the first post was written on kind of a whim as a result of talking with Ted Rheingold from and then my girlfriend about it. We had just finished with WebZine2005, so my perspective was definitely colored for those lenses.

Look, I agree about most buzzword bingos out there - the problem is when they are misused and misunderstood. They are really effective sometimes as a shorthand to get to deeper issues - the problem is when it reaches the status that everyone pretends to know what it really means when they dont. So if we can create understanding and agreement about it, we can make it better and move beyond.

I wrote a post today called "What is Web 2.1?" - I did not want to get into the depths of the definition, I want something simple that I can use as a widely spread term that my grandfather will understand. Shit, I want him to be able to use it! For me it became clear finally today - Web 2.0 is about technology whereas Web 2.1 is about people using technology. It is about us speaking to average folks in terms they can understand. Check out the post and let me know what you think - am I that far off base or is this at least a workable direction to head with this idea?

yeah he is interesting, i

yeah he is interesting, i only just found him, and i like him already :)

Someone asked me today if what we were working on (not tw) was web2.0 - i said i didnt think it mattered very much, to just let the users decide and label us however they feel comfy doing so...

having said that, i do like the rather neat "label" of web2.0 - it differentiates what's trendy now, from what was trendy 4yrs ago. But this chap was sooooo write about Tim's little list, particularly the wiki bit..

I dont think half the people wittering on about wiki's have the faintest clue what they're talking about..

Great :-)

I was just about to back up off the whole web 2.0 thing, leaving it for others to discuss and have an opinion about, as it seemed I was alone in the known universe with mine.

This attempt to categorize stuff as Web 1.0 vs. 2.0. is, well, interesting.

That's a great post, and a great site. That man speaks pure reason. Even though we don't share the same level of affection for Tim O'Reilly. (Don't get me wrong: Tim seems like a nice guy, and he's got some interesting views on a lot of stuff, but he's still not Jesus2.0).

These two are hilarious:

Technology Update: MP3s are not Porn Videos
Customers: Sometimes they're just assholes

IMHO, that guy's a much more interesting read than that other VC you sometimes link to.


This is way too funny, web1.0 sponsored by 43folders

We will meet to discuss line breaks, spacer gifs, and the ability to launch links in a new browser window.

There will be beer.

claus, you're gonna really, really like this VC guy....

The Post Money Value: Web 2.0 != a check

enough already with this Web 2.0 nonsense. We are doing the same thing we always do when “new” has “newer” come along. We hype the snot out of it and crap all over the ‘old stuff’.

The modern version of a Tired vs. Wired chart is currently floating around the web. This attempt to categorize stuff as Web 1.0 vs. 2.0. is, well, interesting.

For example: Content Management is Web 1.0 while Wikis are Web 2.0. Gimmie a break. Wikis ARE content management dressed up a web service on top of a database engine that tracks content and, wait for it, changes to that content, in other words: Content management.


A lot of pretty complicated things are easier to talk about if you've got a nice label to put on it, so in that respect "web 2.0" perhaps serves a purpose. Sort of like "The Greenhouse Effect" label or something.

If you see the label as a vehicle for creating awareness, buzz, and inspiration among mostly technically minded people, and that way force them to put on the user focused hat, then -- and only then -- is it justified, imho.

That doesn't change (my opinion) that the label is entirely wrong, but it does justify using it.

>>Tim O'Reilly (if anyone)

>>Tim O'Reilly (if anyone) should know that.

That's the point claus, he does.

It's not about whether this stuff existed 10yrs ago, it's about some stuff that could be done, being done on a much broader level.


That article - it's funny, I actually just found it via some blog and had it opened in a separate tab. Didn't even know that it was Tim who started that "Web 2.0" nonsense until a few hours ago. Just goes to show that I'm not really a programmer *lol*

Five pages, though... that's a lot.

Animated "Under construction" signs

Those were really cool once. But they were, it's true! It was something brand new you could do with technology, and on that basis alone it was really cool. These days I personally "surf" with image animations off.

Now, all that stuff you can do with Ajax and whatnot... It's sort of the same. It's pretty hot to people with some technical insight, but it's utterly irrelevant to the average web user. He/she should not even need to know about that stuff.

Remixing is the interesting thing, not the individual technologies. Remixing is the fundamental underlying principle, but that's not new either, that's just human behaviour.

Remixing is as old as the first scraper. No strike that - the remote control. No, the tape recorder. No, the first news agency. (...) All the way down to the folk stories people would tell in the caves in ancient times.

There's nothing new to it, it's just getting increasingly easier to do it, and it requires less and less technical skills. Even that is nothing new: That's how technology develops. It's not two giant steps, it's lots of steps -- some small, some large -- performed by a lot of different entities at a lot of different times. Some get there too early, some get there too soon, and some don't even bother to go there, as they have no need for it.

Tim O'Reilly (if anyone) should know that.

hehe! damn, sorry stever - i

hehe! damn, sorry stever - i didnt read the link, just the quote you posted a day or so back :)

Yes, that was the article I

Yes, that was the article I referenced - I shouldn't have really quoted the "perpetual beta" section but I was in a rush, trying to find a relevant passage for TW, and that seemed appropriate for search engines!

I've got that article on my list to go back and ponder over a weekend, if I can find the time.


claus, it's not really about versioning. It' s not like software major/minor points, it's a braoder concept.

Tim O'Reilly just wrote a great explanation of what web2.0 means if you're interested.

Yeh, but actually it isn't

Yeh, but actually it isn't Google - Google just adopted that way of working from the Extreme Programming and Open Source communities.

We can give Google credit for a lot, but not that.

Tim O'Reilly talks it up...

Interesting review
of what Tim O'Reilly thinks it's all about.

The Perpetual Beta
When devices and programs are connected to the internet, applications are no longer software artifacts, they are ongoing services. Therefore: Don't package up new features into monolithic releases, but instead add them on a regular basis as part of the normal user experience. Engage your users as real-time testers, and instrument the service so that you know how people use the new features.

Seem familiar from somewhere?

Covet not thy neighbour's conference

I went last year and am going again; once you go once you get a ~$500 discount to go again, so it' not as bad as it might otherwise be. I personally thought it was 5X more insightful of a conference than SearchEngineStrategies, Ad:Tech or even Webmasterworld. When you can talk with the people at the major online companies who actually make the decisions, you can get a better read on the market and make hard decisions based on that.

IMO, though, what was good about the Web 2.0 conference was the networking opptys and not so much the high-brow strategery. Much less was said there that's new & different than I hear in the course of my conversations with people in the industry.

Brad 2.0

Heh, it seems like the new buzz word over the last year. I got sick of it real quick. It's like "portalization" or this season's new black.

Web 2.0 is a bunch of bullshit anyway


And yeah, I wrote that rant before noting that many others are similarly frustrated... not by high-priced conferences (I think people should just vote with their feet)... but by the whole co-opting of cool technologies and ideas into a neatly packaged albeit enormously lame name.

Tey're already ages behind

Web 2.0 is past. That was FTP'ing with Archie and all that. Web 3.0 arrived with the Gopher, it was a fairly short period. Web 4.0 started with the browser. Now, Web 5.0 is slowly starting to emerge with P2P technology, but it's sofar being crippled too much to really take off by politics and DRM. And already now we see Web 6.0 starting to unfold with wireless access and "web extensions" (eg. Skype and (more) early attempts at merging internet and tv - I believe we've even seen an IP fridge).

What they talk about as "Web 2.0" isn't about the web at all, it's about publishing techniques. Even here, the number "2" is generations behind.

Here's the full story :-)

so what..

I can't afford lots of things for my business, thats my problem not a cause for a call to community action. If anything its a business oppurtunity for someone to throw a different event.

oh what I see he has that covered..

Us and them

By their very nature conferences are exclusive. Its not just the price of entry that is a barrier, it is taking time away from productive work, travel, accomodation, the opportunity cost of locking yourself in a room listening to someone blah .. some conferences will give you a return, many more will just sap the life energy from you and it is often difficult to know which it will be beforehand. Could be this price ticket is justified - if you are looking for investment and you meet a VC who wants in then $3k is not really a big sum is it?