Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gartner Touts Web 2.0, Scoffs At Web 3.0

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the web-2.1.12.3-just-doesn't-have-quite-the-same-ring dept.

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.

12 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. And next week... by Penguinshit · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ...Gartner will proclaim the wonders of Web 3.0 after someone blows a monthly expense account on a Gartner "analyst".

    Useless whores.

    --

    I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...

  2. hype by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:hype by Incoherent07 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re:hype by dave420 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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.

    3. Re:hype by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    4. Re:hype by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:hype by timpaton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  3. Re:Yes, but... by ivanmarsh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Web 2.0 ? by sundru · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone even know what Web 2.0 means?

    1. Re:Web 2.0 ? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:Web 2.0 ? by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    3. Re:Web 2.0 ? by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth