Gartner Touts Web 2.0, Scoffs At Web 3.0

An anonymous reader writes to mention that even though Web 2.0 is just now starting to gain widespread acceptance, there are those who are already trying to hijack the term Web 3.0. According to Gartner, there are quite a few new technologies and incremental modifications to existing Web 2.0 technology, but nothing that could equal the level of fundamental change exhibited by the shift to Web 2.0.

And next week...

[Penguinshit]

...Gartner will proclaim the wonders of Web 3.0 after someone blows a monthly expense account on a Gartner "analyst".

Useless whores.

hype

[Tom]

but nothing that could equal the level of fundamental change exhibited by the shif to Web 2.0.

Which is? That lots of webpages are way more annoying now and their layout will break completely if you're not using the exact browser they were designed with? Oh wait, we don't have those problems anymore, right? Yeah, right...

Sorry, but Google Maps is one of the very few places where "Web 2.0" actually gives me something that wouldn't have been doable in "Web 1.0". Most places just use it as "look it moves"-type eye-candy.

Wake me when people are using "Web 2.0" to make their sites more useable, instead of just more shiney. Those that do are still a tiny minority. Until then, shut up about higher version numbers. Bugfix the old one first.

Re:Yes, but...

[ivanmarsh]

Web 2.0 = Broken and slow.
Web 3.0 = ?Not working at all?

Does web 4.0 actually remove information from your brain?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If I can't get to the information I'm looking for it doesn't matter how pretty it is.

Web 2.0 ?

[sundru]

Anyone even know what Web 2.0 means?

Re:Web 2.0 ?

[betterunixthanunix]

Nothing at all. It is a colloquial term, like AJAX. It refers to any number of things, from social networking to web apps, as long as it is done without applets. I think.

Re:hype

[Incoherent07]

The trick is that there are two aspects to Web 2.0. There's Ajax (and things that look or act like Ajax), which does tend to be used badly in many cases. (I would argue that being able to get new data without a page reload is a positive for usability, but you're free to disagree.)

The second aspect is more social: where Web 1.0 focused more on a one-way "I write this page, then you read it" exchange, Web 2.0 encourages multi-way communication, and users contributing content. While this idea isn't exactly new, it's something that's really caught fire recently, and if you actually read the article you'll notice that they're talking about wikis and social networks, which aren't Web 2.0 in an Ajax sense so much as Web 2.0 in a social sense.

So yeah, you can wake up and go look at Wikipedia now.

Offline apps

[Realistic_Dragon]

For me Google Gears is the first sign of (ugh) Web 3.0... or at least, the next level of capability.

It's now perfectly possible* to build a database driven app that is 'installed' over the internet and will run _totally_ off line. You can run a background thread to do data syncing for you.

This is a really neat deployment method for a lot of apps - OS independent! - that don't warrant a full install process. You could build a web store that was available all the time for example, and grabbed current prices when on line and remembered your (selected off line) shopping list when you had a connection available again.

Obviously this would be of no use if we lived in a perfect world where connection was continuous, but out here where 3G doesn't work in tunnels and free public wifi is getting more, rather than less, rare, well designed off line capable web apps are a serious potential move forwards in usability and well worthy of a web x.? increment.

*Actually, it's been possible for a while but someone made a neat package to help you do it.

Re:Web 2.0 ?

[Shotgun]

It means that all the old engineers get to pull out the patents they file 40 years ago and refile them. This time with "a plethora of Web2.0 interfaces with one or a plethora of backend servers provide Web2.0 content to one or a plethora of user with one or a plethora of Web2.0 enable machine to convey one or a plethora pieces of Web2.0 information."

Re:Web 2.0 ?

[ShieldW0lf]

Web 2.0 is everything that was only practical on an intranet 5 years ago, but is now practical across the internet.

Except now we have the XMLHttpRequest object, and no longer need to resort to things like modal dialog windows, hidden frames and web bugs to achieve these effects.

That pretty much sums it up.

Re:Shif?

[smittyoneeach]

Web 3.0 is muc faste becaus i drop extr letter.

So, if XML became ML, would the result be more functional?

Web 2.0...

[dave420]

... is just maketing drivel. Anyone who uses that term to describe anything in particular is talking out of their ass.

Re:hype

[dave420]

"Web 2.0" doesn't mean anything. Google Maps is just a website. It uses javascript and iFrames to achieve something approaching an application. Those two pieces of technology have been around since HTML4 was first conceived.

Re:Web 2.0 ?

[ShieldW0lf]

What you describe doesn't sound like democratically created content.

When the shift goes from "I make a web page and put it on my server" to "I give you my creation and you put it on your site.", that sounds more like a step away from democratically created content and a step towards centralized big media.

You want democracy online, you're looking at something more along the lines of

1) Everyone with a computer has a server on it that they are not obligated to pay commercial prices for.
2) Everyone with an internet connection has a static IP address and at least one fully qualified domain name.
3) Internet service providers are not permitted to enforce terms of use that preclude hosting.

Everything that is happening with the Web these days is taking us further away from this, not closer towards it.

There we go with web 2.0 crap again.

[unity100]

"widespread acceptance" - WHERE, who, what ? the big boys, google msn and such ? do they even count as acceptance compared to millions of sites that constitute the internet ?

"the level of fundamental change exhibited by the shift to Web 2.0" - and WHAT are those for god's sakes ? placing streaming video in web pages ? just what ?

just what is 'web 2.0' for frigging christ's sake anyway ?

Re:hype

[Tom]

But then where is the transition? Where is "Web 2.0" where there wasn't one before? The first Wiki was invented in 1994. There were other, similar systems 10 years before that.

Social websites aren't any news, either. It's just that they're suddenly popular and everywhere. Sure MySpace is new, but there were sites much like it 10 years ago. Ok, maybe 8. Actually, thinking about it, I dimly remember a "social website" like thing back from my BBS days.

So what is "Web 2.0" if not Ajax etc.? Is it a phase, a trend? iTunes is something that's at least as new, if not more so, than MySpace, but it's not counted in the "Web 2.0" thing, is it? Why not? What about Amazon? The reader reviews are often very useful. Other community product review sites have been around at least since the CEO of my dot-com company started one about 6 years ago.

So, really, when you look at it, what is "Web 2.0", except hype?

Re:hype

[ceoyoyo]

There's nothing new about the "social" aspects of Web 2.0. Maybe it's the business model: we'll have no content and make money by showing people ads to look at their own content. No, wait, that's old too. Geocities and Angelfire had that in the 90's (and had their flare of hype then turned into a stinking swamp just like MySpace).

The ONLY thing new about Web 2.0 is the AJAXy aspect. Someone overreacted on that one, came up with Web 2.0 and then all the other stuff was added, by people who apparently aren't familiar with history, to justify such an inane term. Or maybe it's because somebody want's to justify another web bubble.

Re:hype

[timpaton]

Web 1.0 focused more on a one-way "I write this page, then you read it" exchange, Web 2.0 encourages multi-way communication, and users contributing content

"Web 2.0" (stupid term) concentrates ownership of the web into the hands of larger organisations.

Any monkey can build a Web 1.0 site. All it takes is a keyboard and text editor (or WYSInotWYG html editor). Host it somewhere, and if the host turns evil (or the site gets popular and needs more resources), pick it up and move it somewhere else. If Joe Average User wants to publish an autonomous independent website, it's not hard.

It takes some serious programming muscle to launch a bright shiney interactive omgponies Web 2.0 site. Joe Average User doesn't have those resources.

Joe Average User can publish his content easily on a Web 2.0 site, but it's under the control of the site owner. Web 2.0 belongs to big business. Users ceed power to corporations.

Web2.0 is McInternet - the corporatisation of the internet.