|My opignion is that it is just an empty buzz word to mess up with our minds. If this is so, then we can talk about Web 3.0, 4.0, etc. There is nothing new, this is just a normal process of using relatively old technology in a different ways. Such labeling is more appropriate for technical improvements, versioning, but not for something like this.|
It was just a good marketing.
|2006-06-02 18:50:20 - In reply to message 1 from john smith|
|Web 2.0, 3.0, etc.. are just short terms to express evolution of certain practices that guide the development of Web sites.|
These terms are not empty buzzwords. OTOH, there is a lot of confusion with what is Web 2.0 and what isn't. People that do not understand the concept, associate Web 2.0 to certain symptoms they notice in certain sites.
It is true that some of those practices associated to Web 2.0 are very old. I think the Web 2.0 movement started by Tim O'Reilly was a wake-up call meant to make people get the point that sites that let the users become more relevant are better than Web 1.0 sites, on which the users can hardly interact.
The PHPClasses site always focused on letting users become more relevant by sharing work and interacting in many ways. Certainly more can be done.
The point of this blog post was to help making it clear the benefits of the Web 2.0 spirit and also encourage the PHPClasses site users suggest more ideas to improve the Web 2.0 effectiveness.
The Web 3.0 reflections are just an exercise about how Web 2.0 can be improved. It proposes providing means to let users, not only become relevant, but also add new site services by themselves and make money from that level of interaction, so they can dedicate more and enjoy their participation.
|2006-06-06 17:10:40 - In reply to message 2 from Manuel Lemos|
|I know what you mean, I understand what you are trying to say. No doubt there. What I was trying to say is that from my point of view this kind of "naming" is not the best (or probably is - depends, if we are thinking in a way of a wakeup call).|
For me (I am working with web for quite a long time) these changes were just a simple and natural way to go. I was doing it, never thought it must be named in any special way. I agree with you on what you are trying to say, but all the confusion is there (my opignion) due to the naming that makes a good buzz word. Its means are accomplished - wakeup call. Perhaps a wakeup call for "weekend developers" that just needed a little push to see new oportunities, creating numerous blogs, whereas for me and I assume for others that make living out of it, not really - perhaps in a way that I can make a better sell now for the same thing.
For the same reason we have questions like "Is PHP ready for Web 2.0?" and similar, because people are connection 2.0 with technology chages.
I don't know, it might be just me. I am an engineer and I am used to such naming in technology related improvements and software versioning. It's something I can't "touch" and I may have problems with it, but I will get used to it, no worries :-)
|2006-06-06 17:40:09 - In reply to message 3 from john smith|
|Yes, I agree that Web 2.0 may give an idea of evolution but just by itself does not clarify from what to what the evolution should happen. Anyway, there seemed to be a need to express Web successful practices evolution in a few words. Web 2.0 is that expression.|
I tried to summarize that Web 2.0 is to let people become relevant participating on the Web sites activity, but I think that not even Tim O'Reilly was able to simplify it to that point. He just gave a bunch of examples and told why they are a good thing, without clarifying what the common benefit of Web 2.0 sites.
I agree that letting people interact and become relevant in the sites activity, is not a new thing by itself. You may be well aware of that for many years, but some Web site owners needed to be awaken to that reality.
The owners sites of traditional media companies that publish news for free but do not allow comments or any form of feedback, are an example of people that needed that wake-up call.
Another example, a lot of that have built sites like Orkut and such without no clue to why they are appealing. They just blindly copied what others have done. Now the market is saturated with social networking sites that are just copies of each other.
If they had a clue, they could have invested their time and money on something really innovating and useful. Those that fail to innovate and do not provide something new of value, will be gone soon or later. That will be the end of yet another Internet bubble, the Web 2.0 bubble.
So, there will be a Web 3.0 after that. IMHO, Web 3.0 will be made of sites that not only let users become relevant, but also provide financial compensation so at least the most capable users can dedicate and make a living from that.
That is also not a new thing, just a trend that I suppose will be more intensive later and site owners get that clue.