I am back from Web20 Expo in SF and my head is full of all the stuff. I want to go on record, I love all thats part of Web2.0 but I agree with you about the version madness.
Putting a version number to plan software releases way out into the future is so Web1.0 ;)
Mitchell Baker of Mozilla spoke elegantly about her vision for Firefox as a platform and questioned the word "browser - we don't browse the web anymore, we create it together and live it" and the word "mobile - I am mobile and not my cell phone without me".
I wonder if why will should be stuck to what evolves to the new face of the Internet to call it versions of the web?
Giving version numbers to the Web has just about as much sense as giving version numbers to Web applications. Guess why there's no Gmail 2.0 or Wikipedia 3.14.
yeah, aren't public facing version numbers old school these days?
It's not only about "school", it's just practical matter. In the old days, when software was distributed on physical media (CDs, and diskettes before that, if anyone remembers), it made sense to launch new features in packages, as it would be impractical to publish a new CD each time something new was added. Numbering those editions was the most practical way to label then, although software publishers often tried to be creative (I remember how FileMaker went through FileMaker II and FileMaker Pro before they settled on the standard decimal versioning scheme).
When it comes to Web applications, since they are hosted centrally and all the users get the same features at the same time, fixing bugs and adding new features is as simple as making a central code build. This way the product improvement process becomes continuous rather than incremental, so that versioning numbers serve no practical purpose.
Sticking with the "Web 2.0" and similar labels is just trying to apply an old system to a new practice, which is rarely known to work.
Bersilav: Thanks for your comment. You are right about web application version numbering.
But, the issue here is even broader. We're not even trying to assign versions to an individual application -- but the entire web! Shorthand is useful -- and Web 2.0 was a good way to capture what was "new". But the Web X.0 thing has gotten old and outlived its utility.
Dharmesh, that was my point exactly -- it doesn't make sense to apply a labeling system to a whole if it doesn't fit its parts. Even Tim O'Reilly lists a number of elements that define Web 2.0, and very few applications have them all, with many having a mix of "Web 2.0" and "Web 1.0" elements.
Web is simply Web, one continuously evolving platform, and in regards to it any "versioning system" creates more confusion then clarity.
Bersilav: Seems like we're both saying the same thing.
Only, you're more articulate than I am and express it better.
Oh, I wouldn't say that -- it's just that I'm looking for a rational explanation for my (and of many others) gut feeling. :)
wait guys i thought that 2.0 was referring to the second wave of VC investment in the web after the first bubble burst and they finished licking their wounds :-p . Based on that i think 2020 is probably a good bet for 4.0. And you know it's kind of bad to jump from 2.0 to 3.0 i mean no revisions in between? Then again by that point im pretty sure shaving razors will have 20 blades... i think ill just grow a beard.
Another "web 2.0 is dead" article by a friend:
Actually, if you read my post you'd see that I was arguing against Charlie Cooper. I like the Web 2.0 handle fine.
Stowe: My apologies. It was late and I wasn't paying enough attention. Reference is fixed now.
I agree wholeheartedly with your argument, Mr. Shah.
Here's a post I've written a while ago on the exact same issue:
Actually yes it is for wankers. Not the version mania, but Web 2.0.
Its public relations 101. zzzzzzzzzzz . Uhhhhhhhhh how can I monetize this? Someone? Anyone? Cue crickets chirping.