Have you noticed, that most of the web 2.0 "sites" aren't really worth being called "web 2.0"?

Take for example friendster. Many people say that friendster is a web 2.0 thing. Sure, it's using Ajax. But apart from that? Where's the open API? Where is remixing? What is it really different from, lets say, geocities with the addition of some easier linking and search functionality (read: "social networking") And seriously, the profile pages there suck just as bad as the homepages people made with geocities.

Especially social networking pages tend to sit on their data and keep it closed. No FOAF files available. That's so web 1.0ish... the web 2.0 is a lot about APIs and open data access. Can you imagine a blogging service not offering syndication (e.g. RSS)? So why a social networking without FOAF?

One of the few "true web 2.0 services" remains Google Maps. Even though it doesn't have tag clouds or social networking. ;-) But Mashups adding all that.

We should rename the term to "Web 2.0 beta" anyway. It's not released yet. Or use the proper term for it: "DotCom 2.0"

Or we should just stop using it, because it's all marketing buzz. Talk about open APIs, remixing, mashups, semantic web, syndication, tagging instead.

[Update: web 2.0 is officially just "beta" - see for yourself. It ain't a true web2.0 logo if it doesn't contain "beta"... - also check out this huge list of web 2.0 logo mockups for known brands, including FedExr, McDndld's and of course S.NY beta...]