saraewood.com

As someone who has been doing web work for 10+ years yet feels on the outside of all the lingo and hype surrounding “web 2.0″ and the fanatical ravings of good tidings (and riches) to come, I found the SF Chronicle’s list to be a small reality check.

Call it schadenfreude perhaps.

But in truth for me, there really are only a handful of new or existing ideas paired with new technologies that result in never-really-existed-before and must-have functionality. I do believe Flickr and Del.icio.us are good examples – and why they are so talked about and were so quickly snapped up.

Most of the others pitch themselves as “we are the new [insert name of already existing web site here].” Which is; a) weird – when often the first product wasn’t very useful or necessary to begin with and b) arrogant – to assume the original won’t evolve or that you will do better simply b/c you have hired a young, perky “community manager.”

I am starting to feel like the “young kids today listen to terrible music” old lady – because I do love the web and believe in “untapped” potential. I just feel innovation is being diverted due to the current “web 2.0″ gold rush – sure, everyone would love to build the next big thing and sell it to Google for a billion dollars (ie, me). But where is the next Google?

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed