BusinessWeek has a great article today on Web 2.0 for Corporate America. One of their best points:
Corporations also are balking at installing big, multimillion dollar software programs that can take years to roll out—and then aren’t flexible enough to adapt to new business needs. “They’re clunky and awkward and don’t encourage participation,” grumbles Dion Hinchcliffe, chief technology officer of Washington, D.C. tech consultant Sphere of Influence.
I’m somewhat dissatisfied with two phrases I’m using a lot.
The first is “Web 2.0.� The reason I’m dissatisified with this one is that it’s become the “victim of a drive-by lyrical whippin’� (to quote Mix-a-lot) by the so-called “A-list� bloggers, who seem to be running out of things to talk about. I think I’ll probably just keep using it because the alternatives (“live web� — yech) are too contrived. But is there a different way to think, or talk, about the sector as a whole?
(An old professor of mine spent several years researching “post-modernism.” His conclusion? “It’s modernism.” Is Web 2.0 really just the Internet?)
The second is “web application companies.” It’s terrifically awkward. Does anyone have an alternative suggestion? What do all these companies (or a bunch of them anyway) have in common? Are they web app… outfits? crews? posses?
Leave a comment...
