It is getting a little old hearing the techie community continue to gripe over and over again about the terms Web 2.0 and Web 3.0. If you are privy to such discussions or complaints, just about every argument that makes sense boils down to one thing: “Why is everyone calling it Web 2.0? There isn’t any such thing as a new version of the web. The underlying technology hasn’t changed for years. We can do the same things we could always do. Why is everyone being so naive and calling this ‘new wave’ of technology that has been around for many years something like Web 2.0, making it sound new and shiny? They [the marketing people and business community that coined Web 2.0 and use it daily] are so [insert nerdy insult here]!” - I can say things like ‘nerdy insult’, because I myself am a nerd, and embrace that fact with zeal.

To be honest, this position isn’t completely unfounded, because the facts are correct. Nothing has truly changed in the way the web actually works. I won’t waste time explaining why this is true, the explanation would put even some of the loyalist Trekkies to sleep.

The irony is that the argument itself presents a position as naive as the use of a term like Web 2.0. What makes this term, and others like it so necessary, is that by a generally widely accepted rule, those who make and understand technology can rarely explain that same technology to someone who isn’t technology inclined, and it is even more rare that they can actually sell it.

Techies are into details, and they have a terrible time selling ideas in terms that make business sense. To that end, techies are their own worst enemy. Generally a sarcastic and critical crowd, techies are doomed to look arrogantly down upon any jargon that doesn’t state exactly what they think is the true meaning of an idea, while ironically creating the need for such jargon by their own inability (and sometimes proud refusal) to communicate with a different vocabulary.

When O’Reilly Media introduced the term to the world in 2004, it gave some shape (vague as it was) to the ideas that were the genius of the dot-bombs and the future of business investment online. It abstracted a bunch of existing (and in some cases ancient) applications of web technology to a high enough level that decision makers could finally get on board. It’s a lot like the references to human generations we have created. We’ve had the Baby Boomers, Gen X, Gen Y… We are all still human with the same DNA, but they have figured out characteristics that can be generalized about each generation. Web 2.0 encapsulated conceptual use of technology towards social networking, collaboration, richer UI interactions, etc.

In conclusion, Web 2.0 exists because it sells. Screaming from the top of a building that the web has been, still is, and will be for a long time nothing more than simple data transmitted by packet switching enabled by HTTP over TCP/IP only puts people to sleep. Web 3.0 exists and will continue to exist because Web 2.0 sold, and the model seems to have legs at this point. And every techie that complains about it is more than likely complaining about a term that probably directly or indirectly saved or created their job.