i think another factor that distinguishes skype (and joost, and xobni, etc.) as not inherently "web 2.0" is serious secret sauce/engineering under the hood (protocols, algorithms, search, scalability, etc.) see http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-europe-06/bh-eu-06-biondi/bh-eu-06-biondi-up.pdf -- very cool stuff (anti-reversing protection, crypto, clever protocols, etc.)

one of the biggest drawbacks in the web 2.0 world from a business perspective is that often the technology provides little barrier to entry. with the typical web 2.0 idea you're not competing on technology but rather on distribution/PR/marketing/engineering user adoption -- things most hackers aren't inherently good at.

one critical point of leverage that good hackers have is the ability to provide solutions to hard engineering problems that are usable and valued by normal people (google, skype, kazaa, bittorrent, etc.) conversely, if you're not solving hard problems, or are solving hard problems that normal people don't care about, your advantage as a good hacker is diminished.

That is a very interesting perspective, and I think that it is something that should seriously be considered by anyone working on a startup. If you solve a complex problem, and package it for the end user as easy-to-use, you have a huge advantage, because any competitor will require at least 6 months to copy your concept, giving you a comfortable head start.

But if you make an online todo list, clones will appear in weeks and it will turn into a grueling marketing task. And considering the size of most web startups, investing time in marketing takes away from development time. So you cannot release new features as quickly, and sooner or later, your users start drifting away.

Good programmers _should_ work on complex problems. Good marketers should hire a cheap indian team to quickly create their web app concept.

"Tell her about how she can now call her cousin for free [..] It fulfills a need that most humans have - the need to interact socially with others."

But the same could be said of gmail - a definite web2.0 app.

Gmail is not really a Web 2.0 application. It's just email, but done right. There is no attempt towards buzzword compliance in gmail. Don't confuse synchronous XML requests with Web 2.0

Arguably the point of all Web 2.0 apps is just X, but done right.

The label's association with buzzwords, pastel colors, and flashy JavaScript is a side consequence.

I'm pretty sure that synchronous XML requests and the certainty that js will be present are exactly what defines web 2.0..

I don't see how Xobni, written in C#, is more Web 2.0 than Skype is. I disagree that Web 2.0 means stuff for nerds, as well. Xobni isn't for nerds.

Who cares whether product X fits nebulous poorly defined hype-generating buzzword Y?