Alexis wrote:
So, yeah, maybe things started out that way, but by its very nature, doesn't Web 2.0 just scream to corporations to look at it - after all, what more could an investor want than to know, up front, that millions of customers are clamoring for a product? By its very collaborative nature, any remotely succesful Web 2.0 "product," "service," or "platform" is going to ask to become corporatized, because it already has a devoted community. Or customer base, if your eye is bent to looking at it in those terms. Corporations take what's good about 2.0 and twist it to their own ends. At the end of the day, then, you may be part of a community and enjoy all the perks therein, but the food's provided by McDonald's. -Alexis
Spot on, but that's because the *term* Web 2.0 was created as a branding strategy for corporations to exploit the *phenomenon* of Web 2.0, which did not have a neat brand until it was given one (and arguably still doesn't). The term is shorthand and doesn't fit neatly with all examples of what various people would call Web 2.0 sites -- but the term's primary purpose was to create a label for something that began organically but (like most socially successful things) was becoming commercially significant. Not everything that could be described as "Web 2.0" has any real commercial significance, but if the handle fits and you want interest, it's a useful lever for gaining attention. Also, there's the very real prospect that commercial involvement will destroy the very fabric of many Web 2.0 efforts. I'm still sure (but less so than I was) that Murdoch is going to destroy MySapce in spite of his own best efforts. He's nearly done it already and it was only the founders who saved him. Time will tell. The point being that it's essential to separate the phenomenon of Web 2.0 from the sloppy and hyped use of the term Web 2.0. The two are not necessarily the same thing and mean different things to people with different intentions ... Cheers, Hughie