Have you noticed the 2.0’s? The 2.0’s equal to ‘now we’ve really been thinking about the semi good basic thing called nothing special because it really wasn’t possible to “versionize”.’ The 2.0’s equal to ‘well let’s shape up the thing to expected and supposed level and call it 2.0, everyone will love this.’
Well, the first times it popped up it felt fresh, maybe even a little bit cool. But start to think about it, taste it. Does it really work in the long term? I think it’s too obvious the 2.0 "baptizers" (market department?) didn’t think well enough.
Isn’t this just - evolution?
My point is; there are some basic types of things and activities which aren’t possible to put in to versions. Some examples: car, job, person, name etc. 2.0’s without a real or a planned successor stops at 2.0 and it only shows we had to call it 2.0 to be able to express ‘we’re better now, trust us. Now; what could possibly go wrong?!’. Will you be more successful if you call it 2.0 instead of just shaping up the function, activity or thing which are not working well enough or more possibly how it was supposed to work from the beginning? What’s the next step? 3.0? ‘Now we are really good.’ Eh… It’s a dead end. Things can evolve without putting them in to versions.
Use 2.0 when you have an unnamed version or a 1.x and the 2.0 is the successor and when you have a plan for a 2.x and 3.x in the future. Also when you can point at a specific procedure or standard. Don’t use 2.0 when you just want to tell ‘now we do it a little bit better’. It’s just so transparent.
Think before you start numbering!
By the way; I’m waiting for earth 2.0…