A couple of weeks ago I was at the danish technological institute to see a demonstration on RFID and to hear about the current state, problems and obstacles with the technology. Peter Skovborg showed us Gartner’s hype cycle for different emerging technologies, mainly to show us where RFID was at the moment. The model shows at which stage a technology currently is in, and essentially: a technology gets overhyped in the beginning, it starts to disappoint because they fail to meet expectations and in the end they reach the plateau of productivity. Here the technology becomes widely adopted and accepted. On the model I noticed several other interesting technologies that to some people is known as web 2.0. buzzzz buzzz buuuuuzzzzzzz….
On the model it seems that wikis and corporate blogging currently is on the “Trough of Disillusionment”. This means that the hype is on its way down, and that the technologies ( concepts is maybe a better words) now has disappointed in some way and now waits to get it realistic benefits revealed so it can become widely accepted. I think the model makes a very realistic picture of these concepts, and most of all i am glad to see that the hype is over… although though i am not quite sure about that. And i would love to see the term AJAX up there, because it seems to be what the main hype is all about at the moment.
I have a feeling that the term/buzz about the term web2.0 is mainly to attract venture capitalists, and to create another famous bubble. Jeffrey Zeldman has on that note a very amusing article about the hype. The term is still very intangible and has many different definitions, but to my surprise I found that some people have already mapped several news versions of the web. According to Alex Krupp the different versions of the web differs by the following:
Web 1.0 is about allowing individuals to create and share ideas
Web 2.0 is about allowing groups to create and share ideas
Web 3.0 is about allowing societies to create and share ideas
Web 4.0 is the singularity
His article is somewhat paranoid about the trust aspect, which the group paradigm is build up around, but has some good points. But when it comes to the new versions his arguments and illustrations fall flat. Or maybe it is just me that doesn’t get them.