Web 3.0 Nonsense
Jason Calacanis defines web 3.0 as Mahalo.com, predictably.
I don’t like the term web 2.0 and I sure hope we don’t perpetuate this nonsensical versioning much further.
What’s coming is the programmable web, the semantic web, and the social web. We are already seeing signs of all three movements. But when they come together, we’ll have something fundamentally different than we have today and that’s progress.
Agreed. I hate the versions.Also, don’t forget the intelligent web and the merging of web and traditional interfaces. Two areas that will also be prominent in apps of the future.
Great points. Multiple interfaces/devices is a big trendI think the semantic web is the intelligent web, but that’s semantics for you!!Fred
I call it WebNu. It’s the era we live in. It’s not only about technology, it’s about how we use the technology to ease our (online) lives. In my blog, I try to explain how I feel personally about this shift. It’s not always in fluent english but still, i’m trying 😉
It’s like porno: I know it when I see it.I don’t know if that makes it more nonsense or less.I wrote about Web 2.0 and Politics, so I suppose I’m as guilty as anyone. Given the context, I think the label can be useful just as a clarifying tool.But mostly I think people use “Web 2.0” as a kind of a soap to wash off any residual stinkum from 1999.
Web 2.0 is soap.That’s a good oneI am going to use itFred
Happy to license it to you. Only 99 cents per use!
On the programmable, semantic, social (ie, Implicit) web:http://defragcon.com/Blog/?…
it’s web 4.48 and it’s definately not calacanis. Just the fact that we are talking linear numbers is wrong. It’s the internet. We go backwards with him 🙂
backwards….. as in …. nowhere ?
By the way – happy birthday to the better half in the wilson home.
that’s nice you to day howard 😉
I hate to pester you with the versions, but honestly isn’t this roughly a combination of Ask in the late 90’s and Yahoo in the mid-late 90’s? Sounds like it should be web 1.0. Also, isn’t Cha Cha doing basically the same thing?
Thanks for the unauthorized feedback on the official definition Fred.You are correct in that I’m building a business around what I think the future is: human and machine excellence woven into one fabric. Now, I know that it’s a crazy concept to some to align your personal beliefs with your business efforts, but having watched your investment strategy over the past 12 years I think you can feel me. Hold on, someones at the door…. I just got a pint of ice cream delivered at half-price, delivered in 20 minutes…. OK, I’m back (zing! pow!).Now, on to your unauthorized points.1. “The official definition” in my headline should have tipped you off to this being tongue in check, but as your response was unauthorized you’re clearly not playing by the rules. All responses to blog posts originating off of your blog in Web 3.0 must require a token pre-approving them by both parties. It’s double-opt in rebuttal technology that I’ve patented… it’s in the new version of WordPress and an open source ping server (mayIinterjectOMATIC.org is being setup now).Moving on…2. The social web has been here for, what, five years? It’s 90% complete and it still hasn’t found a business model beyond “sell the traffic to Google or Microsoft for three years” and deal with our own bottom line later.3. The semantic web is hype term–something I’d never participate in clearl–obsessed on by VCs scouring the eTech conference for a hype word to sell to their LPs for the continuation of database tyranny. It’s easier for VCs to think the world is designed into buckets that can be manipulated into hockey stick performance that can in turn be sold for a hockeystick return. The truth is that art plus the commoditized technological will prevail in the next era.Programmable and semantic web…. ohhhh!!! so such big terms. I’m so intimidated by them I just want to give up and open a sushi bar on the LES! Semantic web=structured data and that’s been around forever. The web is just catching up to what banks and airlines have been doing for decades. Will it be powerful? Certainly it will be nice to be able to pull down Yelp! reviews and format them for your phone better, but that’s a VCARD and VCAL standard-level improvement on live. Good, but not great.In the (Web 3.0) future please remember to have your blog posts cleared through the central Flameoff authorization center. Filters showed 18% hostility toward the subject in this post–a full 4% higher than the national and 2% higher than your local/zipcode average.
unauthorised ?should we licence web 3.0 from you, Jason ?if this is web 3.0 I can’t wait until you come up with 4.0 !
Eric Schmidt was asked recently what Web 3.0 was and he gave a lot better answer: http://youtube.com/watch?v=…PS: Mahalo is a failed “search engine” aka SEO play…
web 3.0 will not occur until after we go through a period when all these crap companies go IPO and the public gets hurt and the market dips.
That’s a distinct possibility which I mused about several weeks ago in my ‘web in for a tough time?’ postFred
Sounds like web 3.0 is coming soon..Woot!
I’m pretty sure you’ll get the benefit of $2K web 3.0 conferences in no time !!don’t blink !
Frankly I find his statement elitist and irresponsible, a leader in web 2.0 should be more realistic than he has come across on this one. If anything it shows just how far removed he is from everyone else.
if he’s leading you, you’re in serious trouble Dan, sorry.
I couldn’t agree more
Thank you Fred. If you can’t define something clearly – it’s usually a sign of a lack of substance!
Agreed. These are all natural evolutions of the web. They really don’t need to be defined with a trademark.
your birthday fred? mine today too! best wishes.I recall at least 8 years ago several start ups attempting to map the cognitive processes of the brain. How the brain processes information or several loosely related ways to refer to a faculty for the human-like processing of information, applying knowledge and changing preferences (quote from wikipedia).My simple understanding of this is getting the web to act, and think more like we do – thus web going social, and so on.
Off-topic, just wanted to say that I really like the new, improved, A VC, with Fred participating in the comments :)It adds a layer to the conversationCheers, Giordano
My crackberry is now my smackberryCommenting via mobile email is something I’ve wanted for years
FWIW, I don’t like the term “Web 2.0” much either and I’m the one who made it stick! But for a bit of context, remember what it’s origin was: we wanted to do a conference that said “the web is back” after the dot com bust, and everyone thinking the web is over. That’s the 2.0 part.Then in explaining what made 2.0 “different,” I spent a lot of time articulating what made some sites survive the bust, and what I saw in the ones that were up and coming.So my question about Web 3.0 is simple: what’s going to make us need a 3.0 term? Will it be after the next bust? Meanwhile, there are lots of trends that are going to converge to make a significant revolution. But it’s not more of the same stuff that’s already driving Web 2.0.The kind of stuff Jason is talking about is at best, Web 2.0.1 if it were to succeed to its fullest. It’s just not anywhere near a revolution.
Given enough people believing it (and funding it) any commentary will pass as truth… even your definition of web 2.0, and this is still true for Jason’s too.The problem is, I just don’t think too many people can be fooled twice with the same thing 🙂
TimThanks for your help in getting our collective mojo back I will be always grateful to you and john for doing thatFred
ugh.. i don’t like it either.. why does he need to create new “buckets” for everything, and the sort of self-serving nature of it makes me need a bar of web 2.0 soap to wash off
Maybe we should just take the Microsoft route and start calling it Web 2004 this year ?
Couldn’t agree more. The web is moving full-speed in the direction of community, sharing and collaborative building. Labeling versions is simply stupid. It’s a natural evolution and maturing of the medium.