Why Web 2.0 isn’t really all that innovative
Web 2.0 is often mistaken as a technology thing, but it’s really more of a people thing. Some also think of Web 2.0 as innovative and exclusive to the web–but really, it’s not. In fact, the greatest driving force of Web 2.0–the social experience–has been around for a very, very long time. The only thing new is that web developers have finally found a way to put it on the web.
They beat us to it
One of the first instances of an experience in entertainment would have to be sports. The Greeks and Romans even got this with their Olympic Games and gladiator matches. Nowadays sports are a little more civilized, for instead of wrestling naked and combating lions we wear padding and knock each other over. All of these, however, draw audience participation. Sports were a big thing back then, and they’re a big thing now. They let the audience react with each other and be a part of the entertainment. Why else do people pay thousands of dollars for a Super Bowl ticket when they could actually get a better view from their couch? When you pay for a seat, you pay for an experience. People want to take part in the energy of that crowd. Not to mention, hot dogs just aren’t the same at home.
Video games do the same thing. The game developers create a world, and the gamers explore and destroy it. MORPGs such as World of Warcraft take this to the extreme–not only does the gamer take part in the experience, but he is the experience for the other players.
Reality shows also do the same thing. Take American Idol for example: Whether you’re addicted or not, it has obviously succeeded. Last year, over a billion votes were cast throughout the season–that’s a heckuva lot of votes. Or even take a show like Lost. It isn’t a reality show per se, but it has succeeded in creating audience participation. Look up Lost theories on Technorati, or just ask Jeff using his fancy new search bar (sorry, couldn’t resist). People don’t want to just watch entertainment; they want to be a part of it.
Finally, the web
Web 2.0 simply takes this very old phenomenon and applies it to the web. When a site pulls this off successfully, you get something like Flickr. There are several other online photo sharing sites, but why is Flickr so much more popular? Because Flickr created a community. People don’t want to just upload photos; they want to share them with the world. They want to know what the world thinks of their photos, and they want to let the world know what they think of other photos. Both Del.icio.us and Ma.gnolia are doing the same thing with bookmarking.
And even though I hate it just as much as you do (probably more), this post wouldn’t be complete without mentioning MySpace. The code may be crap, the design may be awful, but they did do something right. They managed to let their visitors be the experience. MySpacers don’t just browse the site, they help create the site.
And that’s nothing new. It is, however, what people still enjoy. 
Well put Elliot. And sad to say, although a complete waste of good resources and a udder hidious application, MySpace is the poster boy for Web 2.0…
I don’t know if I’d call it the poster boy though, because although they did manage to get the social experience aspect, it could be much, much better if redone.
After reading through this post, I’d have to say that I agree with you. While some people look for styles, color schemes, etc. that are “Web 2.0″, I’ve always thought of them as more so the ever-fluctuating trends that happen to exist while the Web 2.0 movement is taking place, not part of the actual fiber of Web 2.0, which, as you put it, is a people thing. Good post.
@Brendon: Thanks.
Yeah, I’d say all the color schemes and trends aren’t what makes a site Web 2.0 in itself, but they do help. Not because they are “cool,” but because if used correctly they can help connect with the users and provide them with an experience.
I don’t care if you’ve got a pointy badge or whatever, but if you are connecting with the users and providing them with the best experience possible then you’re 2.0 enough for me.