Google CEO Eric Schmidt was recently at the Seoul Digital Forum and he was asked to define Web 3.0 by an audience member. After first joking that Web 2.0 is "a marketing term", Schmidt launched into a great definition of Web 3.0. He said that while Web 2.0 was based on Ajax, Web 3.0 will be "applications that are pieced together" - with the characteristics that the apps are relatively small, the data is in the cloud, the apps can run on any device (PC or mobile), the apps are very fast and very customizable, and are distributed virally (social networks, email, etc).
Here is Schmidt's full answer via a YouTube video uploaded by Seokchan (Channy) Yun (via Orli Yakuel):
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Eric Schmidt Defines Web 3.0.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1515
Google CEO Eric Schmidt defines web3.0 in this short clip ( Highlights: "pieced together" & "distributed virally" & "very customizable" My bet is that the next gen web will be called something other than web3.0 -- like the XBox ;)... Read More
Back in May, an intrepid interlocutor in Korea stuck a pointy stick into a semantic hornet's nest by asking Google's resident CEO, Eric Schmidt, an "easy question": What is Web 3.0? After some grumbling about "marketing terms," Schmidt obliged, saying ... Read More
Nach zwei kommt drei. Was ist also Web 3.0? Das wurde Google CEO Eric Schmidt gefragt. Seine Antwort gibt es inklusive Video bei readwriteweb.com. ... Read More
Auf einer Konferenz in Seoul wurde Google CEO Eric Schmidt gebeten den Begriff Web 3.0 zu definieren. Schmidt antwortete zunächst, dass Web 2.0 ein reiner Marketing Begriff sein, gestand dann aber ein, dass dynamische Ajax Elemente wohl das wicht... Read More
I don't know if it's coincidence or if the Freakonomics guys wanted to arrive at the New York Times with a splash, but their two part series, If You Were a Terrorist, How Would You Attack? has really made some waves online. ...Plus... Double checking t... Read More
Es wird ja viel diskutiert über die Zukunft des Web, aber die Idee des Google CEO’s Eric Schmidt davon, wohin das Netz sich entwickelt ist sehr interessant: Nach einem etwas merkwürdigem Beginn (auf den Laura hinweist) beschreibt er sei... Read More
Eric Schmidt Defines Web 3.0:Google CEO Eric Schmidt was recently at the Seoul Digital Forum and he was asked to define Web 3.0 by an audience member…. He said that while Web 2.0 was based on Ajax, Web 3.0 will be ‚Äúapplications that are pieced... Read More
digg_url = 'http://www.digg.com/tech_news/Eric_Schmidt_Defines_Web_3_0'; digg_bgcolor = '#ffffff'; digg_skin = 'compact'; Google CEO Eric Schmidt was recently at the Seoul Digital Forum and he was asked to define Web 3.0 by an audience member. After fi... Read More
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
Who is this guy kidding?
The next big wave in web related things probably won't even involve HTTP. At least, I hope not.
Posted by: Jimmy | August 7, 2007 2:43 PMSaying that Web 2.0 is based on Ajax is like saying that Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings are based on bricks.
Posted by: Berislav Lopac | August 7, 2007 3:49 PMI completely agree with Berislav. Since when did AJAX define Web 2.0?
Posted by: Noah Everett | August 7, 2007 3:55 PMYeah saying that Web 2.0 is about AJAX is showing a complete and surprising lack of understanding.
I'm not a huge fan of the buzzword - but the latest iteration of apps have a far broader range specific of characteristics.
- Transparent Management (blogging founders)
- Aggregation (RSS)
- Widgetization
- Open Architectures (APIs)
- Rich interfaces (AJAX)
- Personal (Enable user sharing)
- Social (Enable user connections)
- Loosely Structured (Tags)
- Democratic (Explicit/Implicit data used to determine 'the front page'.
That's just some of the design philosophies that define Web 2.0.
Much of what he described as Web 3.0 is already happening in Mashups and on Facebook (although that's a walled garden of course).
Posted by: Chris Saad | August 7, 2007 4:23 PMI got the impression Schmidt doesn't really care what it's called (web 2.0, 3.0), but his main point seemed to be that we haven't yet got to the point where "applications that are pieced together" has become mainstream. And I'd agree with him on that -- and incidentally it's why Facebook has had such an impact this year. It's beginning to happen in mainstream now, pushed by FB, Google, MS, and others.
Posted by: Richard MacManus | August 7, 2007 4:24 PMThe definition of web 2.0 varies the same as the definition of spam has over the years. Spam is user defined and so is Web 2.0.
Personally, I always thought that Web 2.0 had to do more with user participation in content creation and distribution than it had to do with any particular development platform. And, yes - the evolution from this new collaborative environment on the web (web 2.0) will certainly involve strategies to manage our collaboration more effectively (web 3.0). Of course, collaboration management is difficult when walls are built around spaces like Facebook, etc.
Posted by: Tom O'Leary | August 7, 2007 4:47 PMIn my mind:
Web 1.0: People connecting to the Web (P2W?). i.e. ‚ÄúWow, I‚Äôm on the Internet!‚Ä?
Web 2.0: People connecting to other People (P2P?) i.e. Social networking, wikis, collaboration, sharing.
Web 3.0: Web apps connecting to web apps on behalf of People to enrich online experiences (W2W?) i.e. The Symantec Web, the Geospatial Web application awareness of context, autonomy from the browser.
Web 4.0: The web become sentient, rises up, conquers the world and enslaves the human race? (W>P?)
Posted by: Kevin Magee | August 7, 2007 7:04 PMThis is Eric's thought in view of Google. He didn't care what is Web 2.0 or Web 3.0. (He said firstly Web 2.0 is marketing term.) But, he focused on evolution of web applications from Ajax, one of arsenal in Web 2.0 in view of Google. His point is proper to Google.
Posted by: Channy | August 7, 2007 7:26 PMThere is a very interesting article in Business 2.0 magazine pertaining to Web 3.0 and it revolves predominantly around the concept of a semantic web which is what we're seeing these days in a primitive state with mashups, microformats, tagging and other assorted layers of meaning.
In a way Mr. Schmidt's statement that Web 2.0 is primarily underscored by the use of AJAX is not too far off the mark since it is AJAX and the rebirth of JavaScript as a viable development language that has given rise to functionality that would have been impossible to achieve without the use of Flash.
However I would disagree with his description of Web 3.0 because viral distribution is just that, a mode of distribution. Fastes apps are just that, faster. And smaller apps are, you guessed it, apps that are smaller. None of that sounds worthy of a new version number. Instead the next evolution will, in my opinion, be a fundamental change in how the web works. What I would like to see for Web 3.0 is an object orientated web, where Richard MacManus for instance would be a discrete entity, and would be that same entity regardless of whether he was posting on read/write web, or browsing on CNN, or a contact card in HighRise. That would be something worthy of a new version.
Posted by: Matt Milosavljevic | August 7, 2007 9:03 PMI was at this forum and wrote about this comment back then, but I took it from the angle of Thom Kozik's experience with games portal Wazap!
You can click on my url up there.
I'm actually leaving Hong Kong to work in Seoul for three months for Pandora TV, and online video portal that is competing with terrestrial pay-TV channels and other online media. Then I'll go to San Francisco and help them launch the international version of their video site. Stay tuned.
Posted by: doug | August 7, 2007 9:32 PMso not to put too fine a point on it, and i think "web 3.0" is mostly BS, but didn't Schmidt basically just describe what Facebook Platform is all about?
- small application pieces / components
- data hosted in the cloud
- distributed virally
sounds to me like Schmidt has Feed Envy...
- dave mcclure
Posted by: dave mcclure | August 7, 2007 11:38 PMI agree with Richard MacManus's comments based on the video. It did not seem like Eric Schmidt was putting emphasis on web 2.0 or 3.0, but rather just trying to get the point across.
I think they both hit it on the nail and the example of the Faceboook by Richard is very strong evidence of that.
Posted by: kaz | August 8, 2007 12:00 AMBrilliant!!! Schmidt gets it. He had it when he baught YouTube. I seriously and sincerely did not expect this kind of clarity and depth from a person as high as he is in the corporate ladder. I will be very afraid if I were Microsoft.
Posted by: Samir Shah | August 8, 2007 1:08 AMWatch Apple-Google partnership (iPhone and whatever that follows). There is a reason that iPhone is closed natively.
Posted by: Samir Shah | August 8, 2007 1:28 AMInteresting piece on how apps can work in a media agnostic way but i think ajax is a part of web 2.0 phenomona not the whole. To me web 2.0 is an inflection point when the small stream of avid netgeeks swelled to a large ocean of enthu bloggers ( eased by the technology ) which created a new ecosystem in the web.just my two pennies.
Posted by: ram | August 8, 2007 1:28 AMKevin Magee's Web 3.0 is actually Web 4.0. And his Web 4.0!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????
Posted by: Samir Shah | August 8, 2007 1:32 AMDave Macculre is so right! Hence read, hear and watch Scoble. His antena is nicely tuned to future about iPhone and Facebook. Someday, he will realize that he has invented Web 3.0!
Posted by: Samir Shah | August 8, 2007 1:42 AMWhether it is 2 or 3 -- as an end user, I am worried, if service provider offering me the best service at the best price -- I should also have various options.
Posted by: Market Research Report | August 8, 2007 2:21 AMI think Erich Schmidt describes a pretty logical step in the evolution of the internet. The number we assign to it may be less obvious, but it's not really an important description of the development.
Posted by: Lars Teigen | August 8, 2007 3:38 AMI don't think he knew what to say.
AJAX is great but it's sparingly useful. It is not what the internet is or is made up of right now. It's just a nice-to-have.
This labeling of "Web 2.0" is absurd and I despise it. The internet has been changing for years, why are we now deciding to label the things that are basically trends? Usability and design have always been evolving; it's not like we just arrived. These changes are incremental and there really aren't any objective milestones, so why are we doing this?
Now some people are throwing around the term "Web 3.0" like they're waiting on a release date or something. Christ.
Posted by: Eleo | August 8, 2007 3:58 AMWith the Web 2.0 effect already encompassing the so called Web "3.0" . I see it as unecessary to even talk about a "3.0" yet. Ajax was and is important to Web 2.0, but not so much as to define it.
Posted by: Steve | August 8, 2007 4:08 AMThere is nothing the so called 3.0 can do that would right now add to the 2.0, therefore it is a moot topic. In other words, 2.0 already includes the abilities of the unnecessary "3.0" definition and is therefore not yet needed as a term.
If web 2.0 is the definition for this generation of web apps, maybe Google as a company is able to push the next generation even quicker.
Posted by: Joop | August 8, 2007 4:34 AMI like the fact of computer programs spreading as a viral, but that doesn’t add up with the web based trend that has been going on for years now.
I am wondering what Dvorak has to say about this
Yea Schmidt has experience with Internet Startups, but he doesn't have a clue when it comes to developing. Web 2.0 was a real revolution, but web 3.0 is even more of a marketing term - because it adds little to what web 2.0 didn't bring already. "Virally" - ahh we already had that.
I'd say:
Web 2.0 = Reliance on AJAX, User contributions
Web 3.0 = Web 2.0 + mobile phones/technology
Web 4.0 = Open Source Everything, Open Data / Transparency between the user and site.
That's basically it, by the way I love how he worked in Google ..he just managed to promote it without ever mentioning any of the other big players (that are doing more then Google has).
Posted by: TheSamoan | August 8, 2007 4:35 AMI always seem to be this guy, and it's starting to bug me, but has anyone come to any thoughts about when Web 2.0 ends and Web 3.0 starts?
I'm a big believer in this thing we're calling Web 2.0, but in case no one noticed, the initial web movement and this secondary movement were not planned out our discussed to the level that this third coming is being prophesied like.
I love optimism, but lets look at some facts. I live in Canada and for a long time Canada was leading in Facebook adoption. I bring this up for a valid point. I personally refuse to use Facebook, but I won't get into that here. However, many people who I know do, and many of them are people who previously didn't check email more than once or twice every couple weeks. The most important thing that Facebook and MySpace has done is bring onside a bunch of people who previously still thought of the Internet as 'something out there.'
But that's all it's done for this large group. Other social sites like Digg, Reddit and others that are even more niche cater to niche crowds.
Web 3.0 won't manifest itself in whatever form it is going to take for at least 10 - 15 years. Until the generations that currently comprise the age group 21 - 70 are gone from taking up the bulk of whose alive, and the generations that are not aged newborn to 21 become the 'establishment' there will not be widespread enough interest for another huge boom.
There is still so much room left before 2.0 finishes.
Posted by: 10668844 | August 8, 2007 5:11 AMSometimes it seems like the debate over 1.0 vs. 2.0 vs. 3.0 etc. hinges more on the technology. I'd suggest that we should have two "number tracks," so to speak; one for the developers and businesses that think in terms of infrastructure (and need to explain to VCs where they fit) and another to describe the stage of consumer online maturity (mainstream not early adopter). Sometimes I think these lines are unnecessarily blurred. Great topic, by the way. Look at the conversation you started!
Posted by: Scott Bauman | August 8, 2007 5:16 AMMaybe Web 3.0 (or whatever) will be characterized by a total lack of BS from bean counters with the creative acuity of a wombat.
Sometimes these people remind me of Bush clones repeating; "It's hard work people!" over and over when asked about difficult questions. "Ya gotta believe me, I am your President!", holy Toledo - the pied piper doesn't even have to play a catchy tune these days.
Posted by: Phil Butler | August 8, 2007 5:25 AMFirst Web 2.0 is multi skilled process, not just technology. Every web oriented craft have it's own point of view to web 2.0... designers, developers, service owners, users. What I see as a future evolution is forced by unbalanced power of clients and servers.
Posted by: Stevan Majstorovic | August 8, 2007 5:47 AMCurrently, that what we call web 2.0, works in standard browsers, with so many hacks inside at the edge of PC power to handle it. on the other hand servers got so many request on lower bandwidth. Those disbalance will lead to richer clients out of the standard browsers, that will be more specialized, more tighted to the system, more desktop-like. (X)HTML will be transformed into something that render interfaces richer and faster... all that thing will be the tech platform of the next generation of the web.
Funny, I thought web 2.0 was about gradient backgrounds and rounded corners...
Posted by: mark enriquez | August 8, 2007 5:53 AMhopefully it will be without crap flash sites
submit url here
Posted by: jbrock | August 8, 2007 6:13 AMhttp://www.xtremedirectory.com
Web 2.0 or 3.0 are manifestations of Mobile-Cloud Era replacing PC-Applications Era. Microsoft will not go away, she will become more and more irrelevant.
In my own version of analogy, Google's buying of YouTube is akin to Microsoft landing MSDOS contract form IBM so many years ago. And, yes; Google is the next Microsoft.
Should Microsoft get into social networking and buy Facebook? I do not know. I have avoided learning about Social Networking by branding it as a US phenomenon and (illogically) equating them to dating sites.
Microsoft will have to get into Mobile-Cloud Era. Microsoft will have to get into Social Networking.
Again, should Micoroft buy Facebook? I do not know. Ask Scoble, he will give a truthful answer.
Posted by: Samir Shah | August 8, 2007 6:59 AMEric seems to know what he's talking about regarding Web 2.0. Some points I'd like to.. uhh.. point out:
There are 2 definitions of Web 2.0.
1. Web 2.0 is a developer's term.
- The term Web 2.0 started when richer web applications began appearing. i.e. mapping software, mail, widgets (like on live). These rich applications were the result of using AJAX to gain response time and dynamically change a websites layout and appearance (with AHAH). Combined, they create interfaces like google maps, or mail.
- This Web 2.0 is a new way of presenting information using interactive/rich web applications.
- Web 2.0 is NOT about connecting people. Web 1.0 can do that without any web 2.0 magic. And it HAS been doing that. Such as forums.
- A Web 1.0 page limits a user to these actions: read the page, click on links, and submit forms. Of course doing so allows a number of things to happen. Examples: reading the page informed the user, clicking on links helped the user navigate, submitting forms allows the user to order a bikini model poster.
- Web 2.0 allows Web 1.0 actions as well as more advanced things such as: users zoom into a map, slide mouse over a city to see information, to wait for more mail to pop up without disturbing the message the user is writing. To add, modify, and delete items to a shopping cart all in one page.
- Web 2.0 allows a developer more power to control what happens to a page.
- I believe Eric got the developer term, Web 2.0, spot on. By using AJAX we can provide a more rich user experience.
2. Web 2.0 is a marketing term.
- This Web 2.0 is as bloated as ever. It's about everything.
- Every page that has an ability to do anything is Web 2.0. Examples: it has an RSS feed, so it's Web 2.0. I can order a pizza -- web 2.0. I can send messages to my friends: Web 2.0. I can buy a can of wax = web 2.0.
- Every page that looks nice is Web 2.0. Using CSS has become web 2.0.
- Every page that is structured nicely internally is now Web 2.0. (This started a lot of confusion as it is ambiguous) I can say a lot about this.... but I won't.
- Web 2.0 means "The inifinite is possible at ____.com. You can do ANYTHING at _____.com". You can hear this by going to http://www.zombo.com/. I guess zombo.com is Web 2.0. I laughed when I found this hahaha. =D I really hope that no one actually thinks zombo.com is Web 2.0. Cause it obviously isn't.
- The words Web 2.0 impresses people.
- Web 2.0 is used to as a pitch to impress people.
I see people using both terms as one.
BIG POINT:
Web 2.0 is enabling users more ways to interact with a webpage.
As simple as that.
Posted by: Kenneth | August 8, 2007 7:25 AMEleo said...
[This labeling of "Web 2.0" is absurd and I despise it. The internet has been changing for years, why are we now deciding to label the things that are basically trends? Usability and design have always been evolving; it's not like we just arrived. These changes are incremental and there really aren't any objective milestones, so why are we doing this? Now some people are throwing around the term "Web 3.0" like they're waiting on a release date or something. Christ.]
You're dead right here Eleo. It is more like people are waiting for a public release of web 3.0 or something.
Eric Schmidt is absolutely correct here, when he said that web 2.0 or 3.0 are marketing terms. It is a trend that have no industry standards, so anyone can label his company as a web-xxx compliant. There is no industry testing to see if the software products from such companies are compliant with the web 2.0 standard (which doesn't exist) in order to pass. There is nothing like that at all.
The web-xxx crowd are already jumping into defining what web 3.0 should be or likely to be, however there has been some linking on the internet to say that web 3.0 = semantic web. Well, Semantic web has been there (W3C standards) all along way before web-xxx became the fashionable term. Semantic web is very very difficult, due to the inconsistency of the different paradigm of computing that they are trying to put together. Ok, the non-standard web-xxx crowd are proposing that the difficulty that is currently hindering the advancement of Semantic Web, since its birth will be solved by web 3.0 with ease. This is a wishful thinking.
One just have to watch the following video, where a panel of experts are saying that Semantic Web is progressing very slow or almost something that is unachievable.
http://media.citris.berkeley.edu/Future_Search07_Panel_NLP
Posted by: Falafulu Fisi | August 8, 2007 7:34 AMSamir Shah said...
[Google is the next Microsoft.]
How, do you know? Are you just stating a blind assumption, or you know it from someone inside Google or Microsoft?
Posted by: Falafulu Fisi | August 8, 2007 7:42 AMThis guy, Eric... f-loser, this guy knows about money (at least how to spend it) but has no f-clue about what goes on on the real web and its trends. His latest invention: squeezing revenue from adsense publishers.
Posted by: Steve | August 8, 2007 7:56 AMGet lost Eric!
To Falafulu Fisi,
Samir Shah said:
"... Google's buying of YouTube is akin to Microsoft landing MSDOS contract form IBM so many years ago."
So that's the assumption. It's opinionated of course as with the rest of the posts.
Though I don't see how it's relevent whether there's a connection from inside google or microsoft. I know at least one from google and microsoft and I can't imagine them proving google is the next microsoft as anyone else can.
It's just speculation.
Posted by: Kenneth | August 8, 2007 7:59 AMDespite all the various definitions of Web 2.0, everybody seems to agree that it's "something" and wants to define it. This tells me that it's probably a little bit of everyones' definition.
In my view, describing Web 2.0 is like describing what happens when you till soil, plant seeds, and water in your garden. Is Web 2.0 about the pre-conditions, the process or the product? Are we talking about where it came from, how we till soil to grow fruit, or the fruit that we eat? (All are important.)
My definition of Web 2.0 is as such:
"Web 2.0 is what people build when costs approach zero."
Another way to think about it is that Web 2.0 is what happens when lots of players can enter a market where previously they were unable to. The cost reductions came in the from of hardware, software, connectivity, skilled workers, more-compliant browsers (cheaper to develop for), and user-acceptance.
Stepping back, Web 1.0 can be seen as a commerce network which was a dramatic change in comparison to Web 0.0, a defense network. There was similar hype around Web 1.0, but nobody gave it that name because we didn't know that it would jump beyond the commerce sphere.
Web 3.0 will likely be what comes out of the massive paradigm shift enabled by ubiquitous and seamless connectivity and computing. Or, Web 3.0 is when "the internet" disappears.
I have been giving talks around this topic for the past few months: http://rolfskyberg.wordpress.com
Posted by: Rolf Skyberg | August 8, 2007 7:59 AMHeres the Progression for you New Comers:
Web 1.0: Sociality of an individual with stores of data via a Web-based Interface. "The Intelligence of One"
Web 2.0: Sociality of an individuals with data, to produce aggregate data stores via a Web-based Interface. "The Intelligence of Swarms"
Web 3.0: Sociality of the data and logical processes. Data and Applications which can leverage any component of each others processing, or identity. "Artificial Intelligence"
Posted by: Matt That | August 8, 2007 8:09 AMMatt That, can you describe how "The Intelligence of Swarms" or "Artificial Intelligence" are related to web-xxx (2.0 or 3.0)?
BTW, your message is intended for newcomers like myself, whom I specialize in Swarm Optimization & Machine Learning and your definitions that you've stated above are meaningless unless you have different meanings for those phrases.
Posted by: Falafulu Fisi | August 8, 2007 8:33 AMyou can define web 2.0 from several different perspectives. schmidt heads up a software company and so his perspective of what makes something web 2.0 is from a software perspective. to him, it's dynamic pages, sites that behave like applications, portable data, etc. ajax is very important for a lot of things like that. from -our- perspective, it's about something else, content, democracy, etc.
Posted by: J. A | August 8, 2007 9:06 AMWho cares what technology it's based upon? If it ain't mobile, it ain't worth it. Mobile is the next phase.
Posted by: Michael Dillon | August 8, 2007 9:47 AMI agree with Michael Dillon. While I'm an end user, and not a huge user of the mobile services that are out there already, Mobile is definitely the next big wave. I believe that what is presently called Web 2.0 will continue to evolve and improve, but mobile capabilities will be the next jump in the evolution of the net.
Posted by: G. A. Harrison | August 8, 2007 10:06 AMWeb 3.0 is exactly the same thing as Web 2.0: a vacuous, meaningless marketing buzzword bereft of any real meaning whatsoever.
Posted by: Phillip Rhodes | August 8, 2007 10:16 AMHe's right about web 2.0. Websites were all done in a similar vein until google rolled out google maps, and rescued javascript from davy john's locker.
Posted by: John | August 8, 2007 10:47 AMisnt this just facebook apps?
Posted by: bipit | August 8, 2007 11:18 AMSpiders will fear the coming of web 3.0... they have to go to summerschool for an architectual update.. and who's gonna pay for that???
Posted by: Richard | August 8, 2007 11:43 AMWeb 3.0 is so passé. The future of the internet obviously resides in iNet Rev. C, which is a combination of Web 0.5 and WWW:PhaseBlue.
Posted by: Avago | August 8, 2007 12:43 PMSomebody should shoot the douche-bag that asked that question, clearly he was sitting there with his thumb up his ass the whole time waiting to be a smug asshole and say something idiotic.
Newsflash, they said the same shit about Java when it launched, clearly that didn't work out.
Posted by: J.J. Kaye | August 8, 2007 1:13 PMWeb 3.0 is Already Here.
I guess P2P is Web 3.0
P2P Rules. :)
Posted by: NoTrick | August 8, 2007 1:14 PM@ J.J. Kaye
Your parents probably also said the same shit about you when you were launched, and clearly that didn't work out
Posted by: Richard | August 8, 2007 1:56 PMIt was good for a laugh - I mean really its just a buzz word 2.0 3.0 100.0
I dont think we are finished with web 2.0 yet! But thanks any way from your friends over @ http://www.askTheAdmin.com
Posted by: Karl Gechlik | August 8, 2007 2:53 PMThat is BS 2.0
Posted by: ST | August 8, 2007 5:22 PMFacebook and Second Life are Web 3.0 sites even if they do not claim that. Facebook looks too much like a virtual world and Second Life looks too much like a Social Network.
Posted by: Samir Shah | August 8, 2007 6:58 PMSamir said...
[Facebook and Second Life are Web 3.0 sites even if they do not claim that.]
Again, can you define what is actually a web 3.0 application? Is it an IEEE standard or a W3C standard? Take your pick, which one?
Samir said...
[Facebook looks too much like a virtual world and Second Life looks too much like a Social Network]
What is your definition of Social Network? These things existed way before web-xxx was even born.
Posted by: Falafulu Fisi | August 8, 2007 7:57 PMSamir: If you haven't bothered to learn what social networking is and equate it to dating sites, then you really shouldn't be commenting on this subject - and so many times for that matter!
Web 2.0, 3.0 whatever you want to label it, is really just an attempt to label the next phase in internet application development.
In the web 2.0 phase, we saw more user generated content. Content that drives applications like Digg, Wikipedia, and even the MySpace, Facebooks, and Friendsters. It was also about making the interaction between people to people and people to apps more transparent with the use of Ajax technologies, but not limited to Ajax alone. Also, web 2.0 also saw aggregation via RSS, interaction with the aggregate user provided data via APIs (to some extent- not everyone has caught up to speed with this yet), and the use of advertising being the main business model for revenue using the patterns and stats from user generated aggregate data. The web 2.0 phase brought more attention to user behaviors and interactions with data than just users connecting with users alone.
Web 3.0 will really just be an extension of web 2.0 so the shift will be more subtle. You'll start to see more web apps bringing components and maybe the entire application to the Desktop with platforms like Adobe AIR, PHP-GTK2, etc. It will probably be more about reach than new technology. Also, like others have said, there will be a push towards a semantic web with microformats and more standards like OpenID for a common interface to all these apps. The days where creating 100's of user accounts, passwords, profiles, contact lists, will slowly be going away. It's already begun.
But, to label phases is definitely more for marketing purposes since there's no line in the sand to say when one phase begins and one ends. Nothing ends, things just evolve. Buzzwords is just a way for the tech sector to make things more clear to the average person and business.
Posted by: Amit Lamba | August 9, 2007 12:57 AMweb3.0 = web2.0 + instant Interaction + Authenticated Applications.
am i making sense??
~BALA
Posted by: bala | August 9, 2007 3:03 AMDear Falafulu,
Why is Google the next Microsoft?
In 1980s Microsoft owned THE operating system (others were insignificant). She was a natural monopoly.
In 2000s Google owns and will continue to own THE video web (others are insignificant). Text is dispersed, audio is dispersed but the most important aspect of the web is owned by one company, Google. She is a natural monopoly.
As time goes video aspect of the web will become more and more important. Search just gets them here to there, but video web is and will continue to lead them into greener and greener pastures eventually confronting and beating Micorsoft (if Microsoft lacks agility then).
Hope this explanation helps.
Posted by: Samir Shah | August 9, 2007 6:22 AMWeb 1.0 - was a breeding ground for producing spam;
Posted by: V. Sytnik | August 9, 2007 7:40 AMWeb 2.0 - produced even more spam;
Web 3.0 - I hope someone will think of a web filter against spam.
WOW - Google of all monsters, I would think your lime lighters would have a better understanding of the trends and catchy terms by now!
Web 2.0 is a lot of things, with much more substance than a flimsy marketing term, and most importantly it's an evolutionary phase in the fusion of technology and trend towards a certain collection of form and function. Yes, Web 2.0 can be a technology term referring to the new trends of AJAX-like interfaces, sure, but is also a lot of other things more fundamental than AJAX or whatever your language/facet of choice may be. And by the way, Google guy, your AJAX personalized homepage is awesome and on the brink of greatness... except it's a huge pain in the ass.
Here's my take:
Web 2.0:
- Structurally is separating content from design- tableless layouts (100% CSS / DIV tag structure), top-down valid standard HTML using correct formatting tags- h1, h2, p... Inherently optimized well-formed clean code.
- Trend wise it is a world wide movement of simplistic and functional second-wave websites doing anything from social networking to organic user-generated content, often leveraging a self-generated community.
- Functionally true web 2.0 websites employ some attempt at semantics, "tagging" being the most popular and useful, allowing for content to be populated with relevant key words and categories - although sometimes ambiguous (web 3.0 challenge). Also 2.0 is sharing of content, via RSS feeds or API's allowing at least one public interface for a site's content. THESE are the real primers for web 3.0, it only lacks standardization and advancement.
- Look & Design wise, web 2.0 has adopted a trend-setting recognizable style, making use of the tableless layouts, jelly-like super-gloss style buttons and graphics, very clean and simplistic design approaches, focusing more on usability and SEO optimization than the previous wave, absolutely influenced by the success of the simplicity of google's main search interface (sorry but the other ones still have room for improvement :-o ).
Web 3.0:
Web 3.0 thus is the next evolutionary phase and trendy movement that catches on, hinging on web 2.0's ideas and establishment of said concepts. It is something that has already begun to sprout up in different places on the web, and really employs all of the same concepts in a much more functionally fluid and standardly open way.
Web 3.0 has to be 100% valid (for all intents and purposes, not necessarily according to w3c), standardized and optimized top-down content, separate from design, whether it be HTML, XHTML, XML, RSS, HTML5, AJAX served, PHPX, Ridiculous1337Code or anything else that comes out - it's arbitrary as long as it is standardized and supported. The content must be tagged or otherwise semantically identified in a standard sharable way (thanks RSS), and global semantic standardization must be set in place so that effective web2web content searching and sharing can be done with user controllable context-based cross-site browsing. Mashups are great examples of mini web 3.0 functionality - openly sharing and combining with standard formats, unfortunately these are typically proprietary formats and API's... In other words facebook mashups don't work on myspace, google mashups don't work on digg... etc Web 3.0 will develop avenues for this global collaborative functionality.
In a nutshell, regardless of the size or language of apps, web 3.0 is about fluidly networking semantically enhanced sharable and identifiable content. It will do for the web what the Dewey decimal system (sp?) and library exchange combo did for libraries. It will give computers the ability to rationally sort and explore data with intelligence across the entire web. A web 3.0 website thus networks with other major sites, meets all the requirements of web 2.0, and takes it to the next level with employed semantics backing new highly usable and powerful browsing. I would like to see web 3.0 embrace the concepts of cross-domain sessions as well in addition to the now obvious semantics and advanced cross referencing search capabilities, but that remains to be seen, but openID has got a great start (nice work).
Finally, don't use my website as an example of any of this, as we built it in true web 1.0 fashion over 3 years ago and have since neglected the hell out of it. :-x However, I believe our new app (name not yet released) to truly be web 3.0, accomplishing some of these ideas in a new way as well as serving content and results in a new way, and I cannot wait to release it to the world. So Nova Spivacks of the world, you better have something really, really good, because we're taking it to the next level, and we just may directly compete with Google, and actually come to think of it... everyone. 8^P
Cheers
Posted by: Sean Powell | August 9, 2007 10:20 AMppl certainly love picking on throwaway lines, rather than focusing on the interesting elements of what the chap said.
somehow, I think the CEO of Google knows web2.0 better than most people...
I didnt really follow his web3.0 definition. He seemed to be almost suggesting that the web would break out of the browser. Sounds like a good thing to me, given the limits imposed by a single interface.
Posted by: Robert | August 10, 2007 5:33 AMIn the most basic terms, I always thought of it along the lines that Tim Berners-Lee uses:
Web 1.0=Read-only Web
Web 2.0=Read-write Web
So the natural extension of that would be
Web 3.0=read-write-execute Web
I've never thought of the term as a technological one, but one that captures the Web's impact on people. Web 1.0 was a time when the majority of us could just read and access stuff online. Web 2.0 was all about democratizing online creativity and publishing, allowing the average Joe or Jane to create content and communities. Web 3.0 might therefore be about giving everyone the ability to construct their own complex environments online. And if that's the case, the rise of widget-based communities and DIY social networks like KickApps and Ning.com might suggest that we're already in the midst of Web 3.0. But how many iterations will we have to go through until we just start calling it all just "the Web" again? :-)
Posted by: andy carvin | August 10, 2007 1:52 PMFor me personally, web 3.0 will be the next step in the expansion of information available on the Internet and enabling deeper, more intimate, and multiplex interaction between humans and data. The linkage between humans and our access to data is the key here. Web 3.0 will also introduce new dimensions of data, such as location for example, which is still sparingly used on the net. The data set for data will be more complete compared to the real world we live in( time, space and so forth)
Web 2.0 as we call the situation at the moment, will still be alive for a while, before we can really start talking about 3.0.
Posted by: Erkko | August 10, 2007 3:07 PMIn my opinion, Web 2.0 is just a period of time when a number of significant things happened that made it distinguishable from the previous state of the web. Such significant things include:
- Google made Maps and Gmail that pushed the limits of Javascript
Posted by: Nathar Leichoz | August 12, 2007 7:00 PM- Bandwidth became cheaper and so large Javascript files and preloaded content became feasible
- Firefox took web standards into the mainstream and therefore popularized CSS
- Google legitimized the web advertising business by showing that you can make a fortune from it
- Being on the internet 24-7 no longer became "nerdy"
- A bunch of students that grew up with the web, graduated and became web designers
We've already done what Eric describes, but we never called Web 3.0. We created an application server NOT based on Web but based on bi-directional communications. You can check: http://www.radgs.com/?section=Concept for de description of this platform.
Posted by: Eduard Suica | August 12, 2007 11:55 PM