NOTE: This is an opinion piece and is not targeted at any specific company or anyone else for that matter

It is impossible to surf the web today without running across a variety of memes. Chief among them, at least in the "general" internet surfing populous, is "Web 2.0". I have seen so many definitions for this term, coined by Tim O'Reilly and Dale Dougherty back in 2001, and find that many companies that use the term don't really "get it" (BTW, I also think the same thing applies to the term "mashup").

The term "Web 2.0" tries to define a mechanic, interface or technology set for the web. Terms like "participatory web" and "web-as-platform" tries to interpret use cases for "Web 2.0". But, we have had a participatory web since the earliest days of Usenet. We have been running applications in a browser since the earliest days of Mosaic. Communities for a variety of subjects were thriving on the BBS scene since the early '80s, and many still do. You can even consider the Prodigy Network from the mid 1990's to be a "Web 2.0" service given the term's present definition. "Web 2.0" is trying to embody something which, by its nature, is not definable outside of the broadest of terms.

Many companies tout their sites and products as "Web 2.0". Look, you can dress an avatar in your clothes from our catalog! I can do IM through a browser without needing a separate application! I can do a video conference! It's vlogging, blogging, wikis, social networking, user created content, etc. These are not "Web 2.0" applications or experiences. These are specific applications for the creation and sharing of information. I feel the definition of "Web 2.0" is much bigger than this.

Quite simply, "Web 2.0" is about placing control of the experience in the hands of the consumer, not the content creator.

All of the services and applications I listed above are just tools to fill the content pipe. The ability to filter, change, and restructure the content is what "Web 2.0" is really all about.

Consider that with sites like Digg and NetVibes, I get to define what news is important to me, not Reuters or the AP. YouTube's hook is not really about blasting me with video from all corners of the world or allowing me to upload my own. The ability to define which content I want to view and refer that to my trusted circle is where the true value lies.

This extends well beyond the world of the browser. Devices that leverage the web or a network, such as TiVO and Slingbox, allows users to define their viewing experience while removing control from the networks and their recommended viewing lineup. iTunes lets users choose their own mix of music, fractions of CDs, and mixing ringtones. User modification of desktop video games has been around for decades and it is now happening on consoles as well. Some Blu-Ray disks will allow me to re-cut the movie so its my own edit. All of these things allow me to stamp my creative thumb print on material I deem important. It becomes more personal and,as a result, more valuable to me.

This consumer driven control will be expected and, in many cases, demanded. Any content creation company that ignores this or seeks to completely remove the consumer's voice from the experience is digging their heels in the tar. I do not mean to imply that all content will instantly lend itself to this customization. For example, watching an episode of 24 will still be best served to a viewer in a linear fashion. However, we may see programming that allows the user to divert the storytelling and allow them to see what is happening on Chloe's computer monitor whenever they want to during the episode.

"Web 2.0" is not merely about participating in a community, having slick web sites or using the web as an application platform. It is about releasing control of your intended experience and allowing the when, where, what and how said experience is presented and controlled by the consumer.

Simple, right?