Slashdot Mirror
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.
Anyone even know what Web 2.0 means?
Loosely translated it means "vacuous buzzword that vendors slap on products, along with a fresh coat of paint, so they can sell the same old same old for more money; except in the case of vendors with new products, who slap 'web 2.0' on their products in an effort to be 'buzzword compliant;' or in the case of book, article and blog writers, it's a term they use to make themselves sound more sophisticated and 'in the know' than they really are."
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
That's great and all but probably not worth spending much time on. I mean, how often do you use your computer without an internet connection these days? When you're on a plane, maybe? Maybe I'm just terribly different, living on a college campus, but I never take out my laptop in a place where there isn't a wireless connection. I mean, if you're stuck in an area without broadband obviously you aren't connected 24/7 but we're supposed to be making it so that nobody is stuck in that situation.
I'm just saying that the return on technology that is only a benefit if you use the program while offline is only going to drop in the future, until everyone is always connected when using a computer.
Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
I think the numbering system is unfortunate (you can blame O'Reilly Media throwing names at the wall until one stuck), since it's not really analogous to changing from Version 5 of WidgetMaker to Version 6, with Fancy New Widget Making Capabilities. There's no "box" that you can put Web 2.0 in and sell to people. You're absolutely right that BBSes, wikis, Slashdot's comments, and Amazon's reviews all go back to various points in history that the talking heads wouldn't call "Web 2.0".
But really, there's SOMETHING there. I consider it fairly self-evident that the way people use the Web has changed in the last five years or so. Does that mean that the way they're using it is completely unprecedented? Of course not; you've demonstrated that. But there's always a leading edge: the test is whether it gets a large audience, and this idea of social networking has just recently hit that.
Consider a slightly different example: MU*s have been around for decades, but MMOGs (their direct descendants) are just now hitting mainstream appeal. Obviously WoW is all hype because it doesn't do anything that any random hack-and-slash MUD could do...
I'd consider it a set of concepts more than anything: a focus on user-created content, a focus on social networking, a mindset that the Web is about people rather than data, and, yes, Ajax and similar technologies as new platforms and new approaches to Web usability. Yes, this doesn't cover everything that's called "Web 2.0", but I never said there wasn't hype involved here, just that it's not all hype.
This is my sig. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
Wake me when people start using AJAX properly. Don't use it to make 50 requests for 50 variables. Get the server to return HTML, fuckwads.
I remember when my P3 450 used to render pages in less than a second! Wait, it still does on static pages, and gmail and Google Maps and the BBC and a few other decent sites.
William Hill and Slashdot 2.00 , I'm looking at you first. Well, at least I can get plain-Jane HTML here - for the moment.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.