I always find it funny the changing allegiances between all the tech-pundits, Dave Winer among them. It usually goes something like this, this week the writer loves Yahoo, and hates Google, whereas last month he (for invariably and sadly they are always male) was praising Google and hating Yahoo…they all seem to do that.
Maybe not Scoble since he can’t fall out with his Lord and Ma$ter, but others can. And then make up. Then fall out…on and on infinitum.
It’s like watching the tech versions of goldfish, strangely mesmeric, but about as productive.
The irony about all this Web 2.0 babbling is a) it’s already here, stop branding what already exists, it’s not new unless you want to go get VC money like podcasting and pretend it’s all shiny and cool and b) umm, what about invariably Web 3.0 coming along and shaking it all up? What’s called Web 2.0 (Google, Yahoo et al) is already old technology, and strategy, as it’s now out there. Shouldn’t we be looking to the future rather than thinking up wanky names for the present? Or have I missed something here?
Having been through a few of these web booms and busts (being a Web 1.0 sort, well it was more like Web always in alpha then) I reckon that when the new thing arrives – not neccessarily web based; or internet; a new set of pundits will arrive making the present set irrelevant.
Thus kind of making their goldfish bowls a little, well, ornamental?
Leave a Comment! Be nice….