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

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.

Web 2.0? 3.0?

[morgan_greywolf]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

[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 ?

[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.

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.

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.