What a silly conclusion. Web 2.0 is so successful that it has become synonymous with Web. When people think of web, do they still think of old, mostly 'read only' apps, or do they think of new, social and user participatory apps?

If you take a look at the charts of top visited web sites, you'll see that the answer to that question is quite clear and that the Web 2.0 has conquered the Web.

Now, the fact that a trademarked search term 'web 2.0' is losing its steam is O'Reilly Media's problem since that's their property. You could say that Tim O'Reilly has been pushing it so hard that he was too successful at it.

Agreed. Just as with consoles, 'Next Gen' is now current gen, so the quaifier is no longer necessary.

He pushed it too hard and didn't realize that by the time it gained traction, the term would be out of vogue. I mean, at least when Pat Riley trademarked three-peat, that could happen again. There won't be another Web 2.0 after this iceberg melts.

By "people", do you mean the average Joe or programmers like yourself who take the time to visit sites like HN and posting comments?

I don't know what tools Web 3.0 will be built with, but Web 4.0 will be built with sticks and stones.

Web 2.0 dying is sort of like disco dying. Sure there isn't going to be any real new disco, but at the time time did it ever really die or just turn into house and techno?

Web 2.0 itself may be gone, but its contributions will remain.

"Things have become so cut throat, that even Twitter is afraid to monetize their monster. That is not natural. People really do need to eat."

I can drink to that.

Bubbles don't "die." They burst. After the drizzle settles the skies will be clear enough to see what services are valuable enough to monetize.

Now if all the Web 2.0 blogs can die along with it we can get some decent tech coverage again.

What would you consider decent tech coverage to look like? jw

Hahahahah, well played sir. Props!

Personally, as far as I care, let it die. Do we really need shite like Squidoo?