11 replies to this topic

[DCrx]

Hybrids: The Potential Web 3.0 discusses what Web 3.0 could be and asks what people would like to be.

Sounds like the right questions for a Cre8tive Tomorrow thread.

So how about it. What do you think?

Edited by DCrx, 21 April 2008 - 05:14 AM.

[A.N.Onym]

I don't think there's something that we can call Web 3.0. At least, it won't be as different from Web 2.0 as it was different from Web 1.0 (static sites vs blogs/social sites). To really have an impact, we have to look behind the corner.

The suggestionss the post had all related about combining Web 2.0 elements in one. In fact, judging by the post, Web 2.0 hasn't ripened.

Thus, to me, all thise Web 3.0 current talk is just a more mature form of Web 2.0.

I hope the post author will finally share what he's working on that is Web 3.0, but until then, I am very spectical.

Here's another POV on the matter.

Edited by A.N.Onym, 21 April 2008 - 06:19 AM.

[Autocrat]

LOL - I'm not even with the Web 2.0 malarky... to me it's still hyperbole and spin... and lets face it... it's still seems to be stuck wioth the whole beta issue as is.

If there is a Web 3.0 looming... I very much doubt if it will function at all if 2.0 is any indication.

[iamlost]

So how about it. What do you think?

Web 3.0 is the current default description when an application has neither needed purpose (solves nothing new nor something old in an improved manner) nor discernable differentiation from the rest of the mashups (swipe and paste) that pass for creativity at 3am.

Web 3.0 is to online marketing as a mention of Nazis (Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies: as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or H****r approaches one) is to online conversation.

Thus: iamlost's law of web numerology: the nearer an application's usefulness and uniqueness to null the greater the probability of being labeled Web n.0+1.

I overcame my normal behaviour of leaving upon first mention of Web 3.0 and read both columns. I learned absolutely nothing about absolutely nothing. Times two.

So, in answer to your question: :pieinface:

I see many potential paths of improvement, fulfillment for what is oft named Web 2.0 or 'the Social Web'. I have seen absolutely nothing that qualifies as 'beyond' that boundary.

As you tend to have interesting twists and takes on these matters - please pull aside the curtain and show me what I am missing.

[bwelford]

.. but what if the Emperor is wearing no clothes.

[Ruud]

I'm starting to believe that the numbers we assign to the web are more about us then about the applications.

Web 1.0 was "passive" browsing.

Web 2.0 is "interactive" (social) browsing.

Web 3.0, Erik Schonfeld suggests, will be about the filtered 2.0

The possibilities of web applications aren't at issue here. I can't remember there having been such an "issue" with regular applications ("oh look! it has a menu bar! wowwww!").

The social aspect; that is interesting. The way this stuff changes how we live, how we interact, how and where we preserve our memories....

[Autocrat]

Hmmm....Not sure...

I can't remember there having been such an "issue" with regular applications ("oh look! it has a menu bar! wowwww!").

I can remeber such things... when JS became a 'must have' ... and the time it took do download a page almsot trippled... and some browsers simply became useless due to poor JS etc.


That aside...

I'm starting to believe that the numbers we assign to the web are more about us then about the applications.

I think is very apt and astute... and I'm more than a little inclined to agree with it.
It's not the tool, it's how you use it (or in the case of marketing, paint it and flog it).
(Makes me think about going out and buying a dual handed , multiple angle, variable velocity and alterable impact device... commonly refered to by the uninlightened as a Hammer ).

Yup - I'm sold on the idea of the numbers actually reflecting societies acceptance and usage of things.

Edited by Autocrat, 21 April 2008 - 12:06 PM.

[iamlost]

The possibilities of web applications aren't at issue here.

Of course they are.

It is the applications that we use to do whatever it is we do. The weblog is an application. MySpace, FaceBook, and Flickr are all applications. There were many more that, for varying reasons, didn't become as popular - that the masses don't use to do whatever it is that they are doing.

The application comes first. It is based on what someone sees as useful or profitable or needful but it needs to come before the behaviours it supports can exist.

That various means of sharing various things are converging is not a change. Convergence is not change. Covergence is consolidation and limitation of platform if not of action.

There is no Web 3.0 except in the minds that need a hype boost because Web 2.0 just doesn't give the high it once did. Marketers as hype addicts.

[DCrx]

There is no Web 3.0 except in the minds that need a hype boost because Web 2.0 just doesn't give the high it once did. Marketers as hype addicts.

Okay, interesting. Let's play with this.

Web 2.0 is the introduction of fashion to technology. It's resume driven architecture and designed to fuel consumption -- of graphic design, of code. Think "Detroit's Car Models" or "Office 2003" rather than anything tangible. And that's why it degenerates into quibbles about this or that as being or not being Web 2.0.

Why make Web 2.0 so hard to get a basic "this is what it is" understanding of? Nothing else like it has ever succeeded by being so ambiguous, excepting fashion.

The top 10 things that aren't Web 2.0

Here are 500 random answers to “here’s what Web 2.0 means to me.” emphasis on random

It doesn't really matter what the super secret "special handshake" mystery definition of Web 2.0 is (or at this point "isn't"). People operate on what they think Web 2.0 is. The definition is what people default to. Action defines. And what are people selling...

Graphic artists can sell the glossy PhotoShop effects and nothing else. Programmers can sell a variety of applications, and nothing else. No different interaction patterns really take place. There is really very little social about any of what is called Web 2.0, even if you can get some agreement on a specific example.

Very few people -- excepting myself and a few others -- has the faintest idea of what a new interaction pattern would look like.

But fashion, or the "model year," works well in explaining how Web 2.0 and probably 3.0 is getting sold and implemented.

Discuss.

Edited by DCrx, 21 April 2008 - 03:33 PM.

[Autocrat]

The application comes first. It is based on what someone sees as useful or profitable or needful but it needs to come before the behaviours it supports can exist.

Not 100% on that one.
Ideas often come before most other thins.... then you get the thing... then other ideas may come... or variants of the thing etc.
Further more, some people plan for behaviours in advance, and engineer towards it (for examples, look at things like Soap Operas - a germ of an idea based on something previously existing... and decided that they wanted to create an enviroment... and then found ways to do so).

[rynert]

I think this thread demonstrates that Web 3.0 will arrive.

Go back to when Web 2.0 was first mentioned, everybody sat in one of two camps;

- those with websites they wanted a hip/trendy/cutting edge label to go with it (and their fanboys)
- the other 99% of online people who just said that the 'new' stuff is just technology catching up to enable what the original www was supposed to do. Nothing has been ;invented', it just finally arrived.


Fast forward to today, this thread if you like.

Web 2.0 seems to be mostly accepted (if not fully defined) and how better to cement it's place in the www than to create Web 3.0.

You can only have Web 3.0 if there is undoubtably a Web 2.0

And today, the same two camps will emerge as with Web 2.0

[iamlost]

rynert: I've never being called an old out-of-touch grump in such a nice way before. Explains how you are able to handle all that chaos in your life so well.

I do expect the web to continue to evolve. What I find unconvincing (in the linked examples in this thread and most others I've read) is 'what' new outlook, process, thought, or whatever that might be encapsulated by the term. To date, the '3' moniker seems hung around the neck of things that - to my eyes - appear no different than any '2's out there. Which is why I call hype.

The only current candidate for '3' is the fusion of desktop/mobile/web/(e)commerce - from social to ubiquitous. Which while cool could collapse distribution channels (and separate the world yet again, North America is slipping badly) and transform privacy as we know it. Want to add in any others?