Mick's World

Since the article on the New York Times about Web 3.0 there have been a number of related articles. After reading a few of them it seems that people are already shunning away from the phrase ‘Web 3.0′ as much as they are ‘Web 2.0′. There is a particularly good article on Wisdump on the matter.

So why all of the sudden are we moving on to Web 3.0 when Web 2.0 hasn’t quite reached it’s peak? In my opinion we don’t need to rush things, there’s plenty more to do within the Web 2.0 label, but that’s just my opinion. But why label it at all? Can’t we just create websites that do something without it being labeled 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, etc.

Does it really need a label?

Is it really necessary to give a style of website a label, before the label there were websites that were doing what the current phase of the Internet has to offer. There were blogs before they were called blogs and there was social networking before there was Web 2.0.

So why is it necessary to give it a label which causes such unnecessary hype? Is it some sort of refresher to wash the stale taste of the dot com bust out of peoples mouths? If so, is this what the Web 3.0 label is meant to do? Sure a lot of people are sick of hearing the word Web 2.0 and rightly so, it’s been used in the wrong contexts and has been affiliated too much with the marketing of websites as opposed to the features.

What’s in a name?

What exactly is Web 2.0 anyway? Mashups, Social Networking, Blogs, AJAX, REST, etc. Can’t they just be what they are without being put into a group which causes such a fuss both positively and negatively?

A good read is the Wikipedia entry on Web 2.0. It explains a lot and what exactly makes up the Web 2.0 label. In a part of the article it states that:

Given the lack of set standards as to what “Web 2.0″ actually means, implies, or requires, the term can mean radically different things to different people

So really the label Web 2.0 is just a mashup of technologies put into a convenient package with fancy labels and an extensive advertising campaign. Sounds like a chocolate bar.

What about the 3.0 name then? Well the Wikipedia entry for that has been removed, however there’s another article worth reading at Flopidesign named Goodbye Web 2.0 hello Web 3.0, which outlines what it’s all about.

There are already Web 2.0 apps that are heading in the direction of what is said to be Web 3.0, so how is it then decided that suddenly something is Web 3.0. In all fairness the 2.0 technologies were a fair bit different from what most of the Web 1.0 stuff was, it just took someone to dictate what it was going to be called.

Disposable Technology

A really good article about how a majority of Web 2.0 labeled sites are disposable by Mike Rundle explains that they are no more than, in his words, “flash-in-the-pan creations with no individual redeeming values”.

Since this is the case and there are so many sites that are basically clones of clones and have little long term future value, will this be the case with Web 3.0? Or will people learn from what’s happened with 2.0 and make it work better. Hell no. The 3.0 crap has already start and way to soon. There won’t be the end of 2.0 and start of 3.0, it’s going to be an overlap that get these labels all mixed up. We’ll end up with mashups of 2.0 and 3.0 mashups.

Version Naming

Why oh why do we even need a version on something like the Web? Is it because it’s now a platform? If this is the case why is it skipping to whole numbers? What’s the use of the ‘point oh’ then?

Imagine after the whole Web 3.0 thing happens, what will happen next? Web 3.1, Web ‘08, maybe even Web XP.

Now wouldn’t that be a buzzword and two thirds. I can only imagine what would happen with that. “Experience the Web today with Web XP”. Hmmm.

Well i guess we can only wait and see what’s next. Hopefully the labeling doesn’t get too out of control.