In a move that’s being heavily questioned by folks like Mathew Ingram, Brad Feld, and Fred Wilson, Jason Calacanis went out on a limb (well, more like “walked kinda near the edge, but not too close”) and “defined” Web 3.0 last night:
Web 3.0 is defined as the creation of high-quality content and services produced by gifted individuals using Web 2.0 technology as an enabling platform.
Web 3.0 is a label that will never see the light of day. Caveat: except for people who attempt to define it. My prediction for what comes next can be found by scrolling to the bottom of this post.
Now I’ll back it up a bit. Web 2.0 is a term used by few. I’d personally put the number between 500K and 2MM people. I made that up, but base it on TechCrunch readership and a small multiplier effect, and I can’t see it much higher. And yes, my Valley-based brethren, we really do live in a bit of an echo-chamber. Even if I’m wrong by 100%, it’s still a few million people at best.
Part of the problem is the ongoing debate of what Web 2.0 means. Per Brad’s comment, it’s one of those techie labels for things that don’t truly have a definition. It seems to be “Web companies that were launched in 2004 or later, and heavily leverage open APIs, RSS, AJAX, or something to do with Google.”
Some people are using terms like “semantic Web” (I like Brian’s post on this, although I disagree with him too), which I also think will not get mainstream. First, most people don’t know what the word “semantic” means (I think it has something to do with Yom Kippur and bagels, but I may be wrong). Second, like Jason’s Web 3.0 definition, it’s just not BIG enough.
The Internets are used by lots of people, including the U.S. Americans, the South Africans, and the people who don’t have maps. Most of these people are playing games, downloading music, lingering on MySpace, and doing other massively popular activities. By comparison, Facebook doesn’t even cause a dimple in the stats of overall international Internet use.
So let’s get all these points together:
- We have a nebulous term for the current state of the Web, and the “sequel” term is even more nebulous.
- We have technology that is far above the awareness and comprehension of the typical Web user.
- The Internet works good. Seriously – things are pretty sweet. They were sweet before Twitter, Yelp, and the current wave of lifecasting, social networking, and other “frills” showed up.
Relative to this, the so-called Web 3.0 or semantic Web movements will be minor, if they exist at all. The catalysts for explosive growth aren’t there. The Internet, dialup, and Web browsers fueled the dot-com explosion (forget the collapse right now). Broadband Internet reaching over 50% of US households is fueling Web 2.0 growth (forget the impending bubble deflation right now).The next wave to bank on is Everywhere Internet. Truly pervasive access will cause the next batch of entrepreneurs to create amazing new services. I don’t know which technology platform will win, nor will I predict the timing, but I wouldn’t assume any “big waves” occurring without Everywhere Internet.
Just keep Web 3.0 off fridge LCDs. We got to draw the line somewhere.
Pingback: Mark Evans - Stop the Presses - Web 3.0 Defined!
Pingback: Calacanis: Web 3.0 is whatever I say it is - - mathewingram.com/work
Feh! Too many pundits and experts, so little time. 🙂
I think the problem we have is that everyone is trying to label current technologies and business trends while they are taking place rather than letting history sort that out. Why do we spend so much energy on what the meaning of “web 2.0” or “web 3.0”? Who cares really?
wait for it, wait for it!
the next article, will be the Tivo hosting Rhapsody music service.
Pingback: ShinyRed » Blog Archive » What comes after 2?
Nah, the next one will be on Google buying Jaiku.
“the next article, will be the Tivo hosting Rhapsody music service.”
I hope not… I didn’t even both staying up late last night to wait for the screengrabs and post when the embargo lifted at midnight EST.
Web 2.0 was valid only because of the dark days of 2001-2003, when people thought the Internet is dead. There was a clear period gap in Silicon Valley between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. I totally agree that the term Web 3.0 will never catch.
web 3.0 would definitely make waves.
as pc getting more powerful with faster cpu and more ram, the line between pc and a server would continue to narrow.
broadband would be ubiquitous.
browsers would be enhanced so can serve as a mini servers and be intelligent to process lot of content.
browsers would interact with other browsers directly using p2p protocols, giving users unique browsing experience.
they whole web concept would change, semantics would be built every where, with the intention of attracting browsers rather than users and users solely relying on browsers to serve them whole content automatically without having users do lot many things.
As am typing my project report on my favorite author, my browser is surfing across wikipedia and blogs to show me key information about that person one a side screen, same time amazon is displaying ads about his books to by just below that.
no more adsense and adwords where i get the ad only is a particular site has registered for this service or not. Reach the browsers directly without and middle man partner sites.
welcome to the new world.