In the age of compelling technology analogies and nomenclatures it was unavoidable that somebody at last identifies enough differences in the history of industrial regenerative medicine to tell Regenerative Medicine 1.0 from 2.0. The man behind is Chris Mason, Group Leader of Stem Cell + Regenerative Medicine Bioprocessing Unit, University College London and cofounder and co-organiser of the London Regenerative Medicine Network (LRMN). His papers can be downloaded from his website and I advise to start with the one titled Regenerative Medicine 2.0, a term also abbreviated as RegenMed 2.0, but I would call it simply RegMed 2.0. The best way to focus on the differences between the 2 periods of RegMed is to show the comparative and quite exhaustive Table 1 made by Chris (in 3 screenshots). It is worth discussing his points and tenets and put the question: Are we really in the age of Regenerative Medicine 2.0 or the analogy with Web 2.0 is unestablished in many respects?