Office 2.0 emerged as well and was used to describe the webifying of basic productivity applications and how the software as a service model made such traditional tools more collaborative.
Aside from overloading ourselves with terms, the fundamental problem is that it's hard to decipher what technologies are truly Web 2.0 in nature anymore. Many of the project management and document management applications being built are based on old file storage methods. Yes, they are on the web instead of on your desktop, but they don't really allow for true user freedom. They also aren't inherently social.
Oliver Young, a Forrester analyst, has talked about Web 2.0 technologies fading to the background. In reviewing his research that contended the market for Web 2.0 technologies would reach US$4.6 billion, we wrote in CIO, "Young says more and more enterprises will have to view these technologies the way we view productivity software such as [Microsoft] Office today: it's essential, and will eventually just be 'there.'"
So what are we left with then? Is Web 2.0 called social software? Or maybe interactive software? The next wave of emerging web technologies certainly can't be Web 3.0 (that would especially piss off the 1.0 crowd who believe Web 2.0 is really Web 1.1).
Yet I've already received e-mails from PR folks asking me if I'm covering Web 3.0. I've shuddered in horror. This can't happen.
Let's do better.
Join the CIO Australia group on LinkedIn. The group is open to CIOs, IT Directors, COOs, CTOs and senior IT managers.