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.

Comments

Shif?

[ribo-bailey]

:O

Re:Shif?

[HBK-4G]

Web 3.0 is muc faste becaus i drop extr letter. Paradig shif.

Or maybe everything old is new again, and it's merely shorthand for the Web.

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?

Yes, but...

[cromar]

Web 4.0 is even better!

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.

Re:Yes, but...

[ceoyoyo]

"Does web 4.0 actually remove information from your brain?"

Been to any Web 2.0 sites lately? I don't think we need to wait for Web 4....

Web 2.0? 3.0?

[morgan_greywolf]

Screw this. I'm waiting for Web 3.11 for Workgroups.

Not to worry

[User 956]

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.

Well pity on them, because little to they know that the version numbers for the internet do not increment by one, they double. So the next version will be 4.0.

Re:Not to worry

[Penguinshit]

Web 3.0 is just a development version. Official releases are even-numbered...

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.

The meaning of life?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have at what version of the web will we understand the meaning of life the universe and everything? Web 42.0!

Wrong Increment

[WED Fan]

Web NT follows 3.0

Web ME will be a more family and consumer friendly web.

Web XP will be the new Experienced Web.

I felt a disturbance in the web, as if a thousand geeks cried, "Don't give them any ideas, you f*&$king moron!

Re:Wrong Increment

[kat_skan]

Web XP will be the new Experienced Web.

Advice: move to an off-grid shack in Montana before anyone has an opportunity to create Goatse Experienced.

I felt a disturbance in the web, as if a thousand geeks cried, "Don't give them any ideas, you f*&$king moron!

Oh. Er. Nevermind, I didn't say anything.

Re:Wrong Increment

[s.bots]

My Web goes to 11.0! No, no, you don't get it... IT GOES TO 11.0!!!!!!! Most just go to 10.0.

Re:Wrong Increment

[cleatsupkeep]

Which of those will be the year of the linux web? All of them? The next year?

Re:Wrong Increment

[edittard]

I tried to claim a patent for Web 65,535 but it keeps turning into 100,000.

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: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.

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: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.

Re:hype

[Incoherent07]

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.

Re:hype

[Inda]

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.

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:Web 2.0 ?

[ronadams]

It's like .NET, widget, AJAX, and Silverlight...

You aren't supposed to know. That's what makes it so cool! GETIT?!

Re:Web 2.0 ?

[psykocrime]

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."

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: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.

Re:Web 2.0 ?

[Ajehals]

AJAX was and will always be a cleaning fluid.

spoon

[N3wsByt3]

Do not try to understand or comprehend web 3.0. That's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth: there is no web 3.0.

Heck, there isn't even a web 2.0.

blogosphere?

[jythie]

So does this mean the blogosphere will become the blogohypersphere? More dimensions makes it better.

A Return To Fundamentals

[Nitroadict]

HTML 3 & 4! CSS? AJAX? RAILS? What is this nonsense? No no, I will take my tables with a hint of information > pretty colors, healthy servings of pure .txt FAQ's within inline Frames, non threatening bullet list navigations in side frames! Max resolutions of 800x600!
GIF over PNG's Guestbook & counters over spamming comment parades
I am General Nitro, Son of Berners-Lee! Join me now and I will advocate for the early release of Mitnik! Web 2.0 will bow down before our glorious empire, and will be subordinates of the House Of /. !!!!!!

Spiteful? I report, you decide.

Re:A Return To Fundamentals

[Fred_A]

I find your comment intriguing and would like to subscribe to your gopher site.

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:Offline apps

[PieSquared]

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.

Re:Screw this

[$pace6host]

My web site will now be a collection of text files.

Web 3.0, now with "gopher"!

Web 2.0...

[dave420]

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

Gartner? Ugh

[Chlorus]

I'm sorry, but after an incident quite some time ago, I can no longer take anything the Gartner group says seriously. Back in freshman year of college, an assignment required reading an essay published by a Gartner analyst. The title was "When Ants Beat Spiders"(a shame I can't find my old copy of it). Basically, the work was over the limitations of spider based search engines. The analyst then suggested using an ant like model, to search "well traveled data paths and examine dynamic content". That's all well and good, but the writer made absolutely no attempt at even suggesting a basic approach to implementing this system. He made no attempt to define what a "well traveled data path" is, nor did he even explain how it would be possible to accurately gain data on dynamic content. In the end, the entire essay sounded like a dehydrated nomad in the desert saying, "Gee, wouldn't it be nice if we had an ocean nearby". After that debacle, I can never take any consultant seriously.

Web 2.0 hrmph!

[ZwJGR]

Bah, humbug!

Web 2.0 is just another meaningless marketing term to describe a bunch of seemingly wonderful javascript, blog and wiki, pages, invented by redundant, marketing imbeciles, in order to hoodwink incompetent .com "company" managers.

Anybody who declares their page as Web 3.0, (or even Web 2.0, for that matter), should have their page DRDoSd off of the internet. >:(

Especially as these so called Web 2.0 pages are simply over-bloated, badly-designed, poorly-laid-out, standards-incompliant, overrated, over-hyped, excessively-resource-intensive, specimens of electronic refuse, often totally devoid of useful content, and consisting of enough images and poorly written code to electrically power a small town.

Note how people who run frugal and efficient blogs, ajax pages, etc. NEVER refer to their page as Web 2.0, they are too wise to demean themselves so.

For the sake of the internet, web designers, please don't either copy these "sites", or pay art drop-outs to design your website, as doing so, will lead to the spread of this miasmic "Web 2.0", clogging up our screens and the networks with redundant and meaningless trifle.

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 ?