Web 2.0 - So 2004?

I wanted to respond to John Redmond's post and comment on last week's post about my use of the term "Web 2.0" and "how 2004" that is. He's right of course, that the term that sounded so hip four years ago is now four years old - decrepit in Internet years. Plus, it has been a questionable phrase since inception as it refers more to a trend in perception than an actual thing (as the name itself would imply.)

All that being said, is it my imagination or are we just resigned to use "Web 2.0" now because it's:

• more broadly understood by the non-digerati (also an outdated term) to mean "all that social media and new technology stuff I don't get but know I should be able to talk about;" and

• a simple shorthand word+number combo, which is easier to write/say than actually trying to describe what is fundamentally a sea change in technology architecture, human interaction and cultural power share?

Maybe I'm lazy, but I'm not a good enough writer to weave all that actual and implied meaning into every sentence that references that new fangled technology and sea change. As a result, "Web 2.0" works for me until someone invents some other shorthand term.

Thanks, John, for the comment. Gave me a chance to think about it and decide that if I'm ever going to lead a revolution, it won't be to overthrow the term "Web 2.0."