Is the sound of Web 2.0 sucking, at least according to Charlie O’Donnell. Charlie has a list of 10 reasons why Web 2.0 sucks. Go read his post for the full list, but here are my 2 favorites.
4. Web 2.0 is a conversational vacuum
No matter how many times people say it’s not, we all know it is. The effort it takes to engage the so called thought leaders in conversation is second only to podcasting in the Sisyphusian Hall of Fame. I have always thought, and written, that the semi-closed blogosphere is a function of the cross-motives between those looking for cool and those looking for dollars. I also think it’s because blogging is a very inefficient way to carry on a conversation- Twitter notwithstanding.
10. MySpace is the most popular social network
No kidding. If MySpace is the crown jewel of Web 2.0, then the whole movement is doomed. As I have said many times- MySpace is Geocities II. It was the playground of kids and amateurs the first time around, and it still is.
A lot about Web 2.0 does suck. But it doesn’t have to. It’s all in the perception and the spin.
Most of Web 2.0 has a lot more in common with fun and games than it does with big business. Social networking, for example, is very distinct from business networking. I realize this is semantics, but names are often descriptive. Those who try to put Web 2.0 on the business side of the equation are forgetting the fact that fortunes are made every day on the fun side. Just look, for example, at the top ten holdings of the Baron Partners fund (one of my favorite mutual funds; DISCLAIMER: I am a shareholder). For archival purposes, the top 3 holdings right now are gaming companies.
You can make a lot of money being fun and cool. Sure, people have come to believe that Web 2.0 is supposed to be free. But it doesn’t have to be. People will pay for fun- just look at Second Life.
Web 2.0 would suck a lot less if it didn’t have to wear and coat and tie and try to sneak into the big business party.
Newsome.Org 