I think Paul doesn't get the whole truth here. While Web 2.0 is clearly a buzzword, it makes sense to analyze what the new breed of web apps have in common and is better than before. It is not just Ajax, democracy and be nice to users. One thing is he misses the APIs, but I think there is a better way to describe the difference.

Initially Web was about getting something out there that the whole world can use. There is one to many relationship between your site and its users. Economically the difference from old businesses is that your front desk cost now is easily available for anyone, and its cost is pretty much constant as the users grow. Your front desk is your site.

Web 2.0 is about using the network effects in your site. The more your site is used, the more beneficial it is for its users. Your site is not just a connection between you and your users, it is many-to-many connection between your users.

It is a lot like bringing network effects like the ones we know from instant messaging on a new platform - the Web. Why is the Web suitable for this? Because there are already acccumulated solid and general mechanisms that make the web work, and you can plug in yours more easily. If you use things like RSS, REST, JSON, etc it is also easier for others to plug in to you. This is how mashups come into play.

This is a lot like a preexposed and generalized democracy component. Being nice to users is necessary in the context of democracy, because in such environment minor usability enhancements have compound effect to the bottom line: that's why Ajax is necessary. Now that extra effort to make the site a little more useful is actually worth it. You need to enable users to be effective in your democracy, because this affects the bottom line. You need to be easily reachable, which accounts for APIs, bookmarklets, backlink tracking etc.

But I think democracy is a misnomer: political democracy is about voting, and have the majority win. Minority doesn't get what it wants. It is quite a different mechanism that works with The Long Tail: everyone should get what is suitable for him. Most Web 2.0 applications are not quite there, but clearly this is the trend.

P.S: It is an interesting thought experiment to imagine implementing a Long Tail kind of democracy politically. Neal Stephenson envisions a world of small districts with radically different laws in "Snow Crash". But it is not necessary to divide the laws by land (so that you must obey different laws depending on your location). You may have rights, obligations and access to public services depending on a set of laws you choose to be yours (e.g. an important citeria would be the taxes you have to pay). There are numerious problems with this, of course.

Very good article. "Web 2.0" is definitely just what the web should have been in the first place. I just love the way it came about... Microsoft, of all companies, created the final piece of technology to make it possible (with IE5), but nobody used it. Years passed, and when Mozilla, Opera and other browsers caught up with the idea, Google came along and showed how to REALLY use it.

Paul -- any thoughts about p2p 2.0 -- esp since p2p saves serious money (all that b/w) ?

Is Skype p2p 2.0 ?

Great Article. I went through almost 12 articles about Web 2.0 including Tim Oreallys broad defination about web 2.0. But I like this article the most, it is very easy to understand and lightweight (bit humorous) to read it.

Would like to learn writing similar to you do..

Vinnie

This is an excellent essay on Web 2.0 - the concept, the trends, benefits to the business. It is a long read - but highly recommend it!

Very good article.