91热爆

Let's stop trying to apply version numbers to the web. It's *one* web and always will be - a platform that's constantly evolving for the iterations upon it.

What about just calling it "The Web" The majority of people who aren't geeks couldn't care less.

It's not relevant to anything - it's not as if this referred to a commercial release of a new version of an older product, which required a handle. The web is constantly evolving and does not have "versions".

Call it "Dave" or "Tarquin" or whatever. It doesn't matter.

A rose by any other name...

Trying to rename a fairly nebulous concept that doesn't belong to anyone...

does anyone else find this ridiculous?

Like renaming the global recession to the 'credit crunch'!

Slow news day?

This fatuous obsession with neologisms is what turns people off technology. Usability is about making technology the slave of people and not the master...

'Hip' and 'cool' urban 'trend-setters' try to show they are ahead of the curve by using the most outlandish terminology, and succeed only in looking as out of touch with public opinion as those bankers and their acronyms like 'CDOs', 'SIVs' and so on.

Here's a thought. Make technology so that ANYONE can understand it. Robert Peston is not thought less of because he explains the business world in a way which is clear and simple to understand to the layman.

Stephanie Flanders does not consider it beneath her to explain complex economics in a simple and clear way.

The asinine obsession with making the world of technology like the world of F1 racing, and completely unintelligible to the non-cognoscenti just looks ridiculous.

And having worked with many IT people on projects I can confirm that the use of such jargon is, like their public sector counterparts, often a way of trying to cover up their failings by seeking to bamboozle their readers or listeners - and the public are wise to such infantile tactics.

JUST ASK ROBERT PESTON !!

As a graphic designer working within this industry for 9 years, this term is hollow and pointless:

To try and pigeon hole types of websites or a period in the developed of the is free flowing ever changing technology of the internet undermines its power and hints at some kind of "defining moment" that I strongly feel has yet to materialize.

It gives outsiders and businessmen something tangible to hold onto to but serves no useful purpose outside of newspapers and leads to further confusion. The internet has yet to really become definable, points, trends and periods of developed can only be marked years after they have been have become history. Web 2.0? Get over it.

No mention of Web 3.0 as the 'Semantic Web' here. The term is meant to refer to the next iteration of the web being smarter.

Web 2.0 is about engaging the user and user generated content. We see that with social media platforms and sites where we can do useful stuff - software as a service, or SaaS as it's known.

Web 3.0 should be about the web as a place where we can do useful stuff but sites then help us to do our jobs (and play) in a more intelligent way, helping in productivity and speeding things up.

It's about being able to put your accounts online and then the accounts website giving recommendations on where you could cut costs, increase profit, etc. Smart web rather than just useful.

We're not there yet - we're probably at web 2.5 (as stated above).

I'm waiting for web 10.0, where we're all plugged into a "machine" and slaves of the aliens who have taken over our planet....

Seriously what is web 2.0 to the average person on the street?

Nothing.

Unless you're in the industry no-one cares, and even if you are in the industry why would you care, the end user in their office/home has no idea what web 2.0 is?!

I guess we could define web 2.0 as the explosion of blogs about pointless marketing terms by overpaid hacks...

Web 2.0 has become a parody of its former self. Sites that stay in beta forever, rely on user generated content and strive to make money from advertising.

Twitter is the current media darling, previously it was Blogger, and before that Flickr (who were both purchased by Google and Yahoo respectively). MySpace, after being bought by Murdoch has gone the way of Geocities, which ironically was itself bought by Yahoo back in 1999. It seems once big business starts trying to monetise these things, users desert them, and move on to the next fad, whatever it might be called.

Yes during that time, sites like 91热爆 News, The Register and The Guardian have kept going strong - why? Because they offer original content you can't get elsewhere.

To me, the biggest changes on the Net in the last 10 years have been new mediums like Podcasts and being able to watch TV on demand.

Before Twitter, Myspace and even Geocities, there was Usenet, BBS and IIRC - arguably more engaging to the user and more based on user-generated content than anything under the fatuous term "Web 2.0". It never made any sense as a concept, the internet was based on UGC before the web was invented. An interesting book on this topic is "Coercion: Why We Listen to What 'They' Say" by Doug Rushkoff where he bemoans the centralising of the internet and the change from multi-way communication to one-way broadcasting that came with the worldwide web.

webbernets

i thought the internet was a series of tubes...

I agree with Tim - the Web 3.0 is coming. Check for online URL topic extraction.

Did anyone actually know what Web 2.0 meant? It was defined in so many different places. Web 2.0 was what marketers said it was. It was and is a buzzword and was meaningless.

The internet is all about progression and change, and to label a specfic change to be a new version seems very arbitary.

>>i thought the internet was a series of tubes...

Nah, last time I saw it, it was a small black box with a red light on top. Apparently it's synchronised by WI-FI to a transmitter at the top of Big Ben!


Bong!
:))

I've written a number of posts about Web 2.0 and 3.0 [1].

I think Web 2.0 has a clear set of characteristics that solidify its definition. Likewise, I also believe Web 3.0 has a clear set of characteristics that solidify its definition.

A subtle issue (marketing wise) for some commentators is the notion that Web 3.0 obsoletes Web 2.0 whereas in reality they are symbiotic (as are all Web innovations ultimately).

BTW - Your organization is on the vanguard of Web 3.0 :-)

Links:

1. - Compare & Contrast of Web 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0

2. - 91热爆's vanguard efforts in the Web 3.0 realm.


Kingsley Idehen

Twitter:

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.