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. 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):
Share8 TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1515
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb 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.
Saying that Web 2.0 is based on Ajax is like saying that Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings are based on bricks.
I completely agree with Berislav. Since when did AJAX define Web 2.0?
Yeah 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).
I 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.
The 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.
In 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?)
This 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.
There 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.
I 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.
so 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
I 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.
Brilliant!!! 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.
Watch Apple-Google partnership (iPhone and whatever that follows). There is a reason that iPhone is closed natively.
Interesting 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.
Kevin Magee's Web 3.0 is actually Web 4.0. And his Web 4.0!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????
Dave 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!
Whether 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.
I 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.
I 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.
With 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.
There 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.
I 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).
I 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.
Sometimes 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!
Maybe 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.
First 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.
Currently, 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...
hopefully it will be without crap flash sites
submit url here
http://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.
Eric 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.
Eleo 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
Samir 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?
This 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.
Get 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.
Despite 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
Heres 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"
Matt 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.
you 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.
Who cares what technology it's based upon? If it ain't mobile, it ain't worth it. Mobile is the next phase.
I 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.
Web 3.0 is exactly the same thing as Web 2.0: a vacuous, meaningless marketing buzzword bereft of any real meaning whatsoever.
He'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.
isnt this just facebook apps?
Spiders 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???
Web 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.
Somebody 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.
Web 3.0 is Already Here.
I guess P2P is Web 3.0
P2P Rules. :)
@ J.J. Kaye
Your parents probably also said the same shit about you when you were launched, and clearly that didn't work out
It 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
1 2 Next