Random Reflections on The 24 Minute Documentary

I’m watching the new Techcrunch 24 Minute Documentary on Web 2.0 at the moment and find myself reacting in a whole heap of ways (most of them conflicting). Let me spit them all out and see what we get (warning – no guarantees that this is going to make any sense):

  • There’s that green color again….
  • American males everywhere – is Web 2.0 just a boys and their toys thing???
  • Nice to see and hear some faces and voices to names….
  • Bubble Schmubble – I think there could be a bubble of people talking about whether there’s a bubble….
  • Video definitely adds something to blogs….
  • What is that music? For a while there it sounded slightly porno (from what I’ve heard about porn music) and then I thought it got slightly trance/meditative like. By the end I was just annoyed by it….
  • Web 2.0 certainly has a lot of jargony words and cliches….
  • Lots of sensible stuff was said….Lots of what was said contradicted what else was said – is Web 2.0 definable???
  • I’m not really sure I care what Web 2.0 is – I just care about good useable products that make my life better….
  • If when you finish watching it you drag the slider backwards and forwards the guys all merge into one and you notice just how much of them speak with their hands and how most of them are wearing plain colored button up shirts (quite a clean cut looking bunch)…..
About Darren Rowse

Darren Rowse is the founder and editor of ProBlogger Blog Tips and Digital Photography School. Learn more about him here and connect with him on Twitter, Facebook, Google+ and LinkedIn. runs on the Genesis Framework

Genesis Framework

The Genesis Framework empowers you to quickly and easily build incredible websites with WordPress. Genesis provides the secure and search-engine-optimized foundation that takes WordPress to places you never thought it could go.

Check out the incredible features and the selection of designs. It's that simple - start using Genesis now!


  1. Jon says:

    There’s porno music?…man I’m so Web 1.0!

  2. brem says:

    Web 2.0 is vaporware.
    Doesn’t exist. It’s just a term coined to give some people more importance.

    Why isn’t Web 2.0 simply called cyber-interactivity or something that tells a bit more about what we’re talking about.

    I’m amazed it’s not Web 2.0 ™.

  3. jdanylko says:


    Definitely some good points (There was music?) LOL.

    I’m STILL noticing a lot of people who are trying to define Web 2.0, but the best definition I’ve heard so far has been:

    Web 1.0 was all about information.

    Web 2.0 is all about collaboration of information and people (socializing, etc.).

    Just my $.02 :-)


  4. Normally, I wouldn’t be so critical of anyone’s work, but that was a waist of 24 minutes, which unfortunately I’m never going to get back.

    The presentation was horrible – just when you think you are beginning to figure out someone’s train of thought, they transition to another person.

    In the end I am completely lost on what the overall consensus is. So, what’s my personal opinion? Web 2.0 is about providing the best experience possible for the end users.

    How “Web 2.0” companies achieve the best experience possible will always vary. Some do it by providing technological feats that used to be impossible, others are doing it by redesigning their sites so that the look feels Web 2.0ish, and still others are doing it by opening things up and making it easy for end-users to communicate or express themselves, either directly with the site or other users. In the end, I feel that it boils down to providing the best experience possible for the end users.

  5. Damien says:

    Web 2.0 reminds me a lot about the whole Y2K problem. Lots of hype, all for nothing.

    Whatever it is, trying to lable it won’t change it. The way I see it, it’s best to go with the flow and use whatever one finds useful.

  6. Nick Wilson says:

    That music is just WRONG…

    Sounds like one of those FBI files programmes on Discovery — like they should be talking about some gruesome crime or something..

  7. Anthony Sibillin says:

    The documentary confirms many of my worst fears about Web 2.0.

    Exactly what kind of content are most of these users producing?

    I would argue they are producing (often reproducing) information and, in some case, low-level analysis.

    This is very different from the verified information (facts) and high-level analysis that constitutes knowledge.

    We need to hold on to such distinctions between types of content.

    Verifying information requires processes (like the peer review from subject matter experts that drives academic publishing) while high-level analysis requires the skills and judgement that comes from training and experience.

    This cannot be substituted by “mashing up” information produced by anybody with an internet connection, no matter how many of them their might be.

  8. brem says:

    What I liked is the war of numbers about “early adopters”:

    100 000
    100 000 000

    HEAHEHE whatever.

  9. I don’t know. There are about 50,000 people that care about web 2.0 but as these few people say things are about the same. Social content, tough to get workers, it is not a bubble but is barely definable.

    And back a few days ago no one called the internet web 1.0 but these clean cut guys sure like to use that term now.

  10. makingitbig says:

    Web 2.0 can be summed up with one Web site … The Web Economy Bullshit Generator.