Has the high-tech community lost it mind over Web 2.0? The growing roar within the blogosphere is getting louder over what Web 2.0 represents, whether it's good or bad, whether new companies are being created just to be flippled, etc. Nicholas Carr, who stirred the pot a couple years ago with "IT Doesn't Matter", rears his head to take another swipe at the high-tech world with a stinging criticism that concludes that "like it or not, Web 2.0, like Web 1.0 is amoral". (Carr also takes a spirited run at the blogosphere but let's not go there right now.) The key question is why there is so much hand-wringing happening. Why has Web 2.0 generated so much controversy? Here's a theory - albeit one that's very much still under construction. The bursting of the dot-com bubble made a lot of very smart people look foolish - whether they were investors, entrepreneurs, VCs, academics or entrepreneurs. With very few exceptions, we all gulped down the dot-com Kool-Aid in the belief the Internet was going to change the world. While it has made a huge difference in how we live, work and play, the dot-com era was also a time of massive experimentation. Not surprisingly, many of these projects blew up. Moving forward five years, we're entering another wave of experimentation and there's a lot to be excited about. At the same time, however, you get the idea a growing number of people are scared things will become irrational again. There seems to be a fear the rabid enthusiasm that compelled investors to throw themselves into businesses that had uncertain or no business prospects will make an unwelcome return. This explains why Tim O'Reilly's Web 2.0 thesis has received so much attention, praise and criticism. Some people are clearly concerned O'Reilly is poised to become the Jim Jones of the Web 2.0 evolution and encourage people to gulp back some online Kool-Aid. What people need to focus on is that while Web 2.0 involves creativity, experimentation and innovation, it has little resemblance to the dot-com era - at least so far. Forget about eBay blowing its brains out on Skype; that's an anomaly. To date, pragmatism appears to be ruling the day. The VCs have yet to lose their self-control and there have been few IPOs to excite retail investors (look at how Vonage has taken so long to get out of the gate). As long as these conditions exist, it's a healthy environment. That said, Web 2.0 also needs to be about creating online businesses that make revenue and profits. It needs to be about leveraging the Web and the millions of users to create better technology that's easy to market, distribute and use.

So let the Web 2.0 debate rage on; it's a healthy exercise but let's not get carried away with what it means. Try to enjoy the moment because the Web has become exciting again for the first time since the bubble burst.
For a good overview on what people are thinking about writing about on Web 2.0, check out Om Malik's post. Another good read is Ed Sim, whose take on Web 2.0 includes this wisdom:
"So if you are an entrepreneur, stop talking about Web 2.0 and start talking about how you are going to scale your business and make money.  Start talking about how you are going to create a defensible barrier to entry.  Better yet, since it is so cheap and easy to get started show me whay you are not just a feature, show me your user growth, and show me how you will maintain your competitive advantage."

 

 

 

Little-known Cybersurf Corp., which has the chutzpah to call itself one of "Canada's leading Internet technology companies, is offering free high-speed Internet access.....as long you purchase its $39.95 a month VoIP and long-distance plan. The offer, which is being rolled out in Calgary where Cybersurf competes against Shaw, features unlimited local calling and North American LD for three cents a minute. It's is an intriguing marketing effort but consumers should remember this is the same company that offered free dial-up access a few years ago based on the idea that advertising would more than cover its costs.