KMR -
19.03.10 07:59
Not so long ago, calling something “Web 2.0″ increased its value. It meant fresh, new, interactive, responsive. Now, if someone uses that term you know they’re woefully out of touch.
For me, it’s been a trip to re-adopt my former web beat on GigaOM after spending a few years writing for our sister site NewTeeVee. I made the leap to the world of web video in the fall of 2006, when YouTube had just been bought, Facebook had just opened to the general public, and only a few people cared about a little service called Twittr.
- An Whatever Happened to Web 2.0? We call it Social Media. Twitter senden
- Mit Whatever Happened to Web 2.0? We call it Social Media. Facebook empfehlen
Whatever Happened to Web 2.0? We call it Social Media.
Maybe “social media” just sounds less like a buzzword or a brand name than “Web 2.0,” while at the same time pointing to a sort of social facelift for all content — a feature that can be included or integrated into everything on the web, rather than being segmented in its own category. Or perhaps it was the futile attempts to brand disparate things “Web 3.0” that made people realize how silly the naming
convention was. But “social media” has its issues, too. As Alizaarguedearlier this month on WebWorkerDaily, many new web tools are just useful, not necessarily social. Perhaps what was wrong with “Web 2.0″ was that the term implied a fixed version — while it’s cute, the metaphor of a software upgrade doesn’t carry over very well in reference to something that changes every day. Innovation on the
web is fluid and builds on itself, and that naming convention just got stale.
Social Media finde ich eigentlich auch komisch - als hätte es Wikis und Foren nicht schon lange vor dem Begriff gegeben...