| |
| |
One moment, please... we are searching the news archive.
|
|
|
Hotel Industry News |
Friday January 9th, 2009 |
 |
Today's Web 3.0 Nonsense Blogstorm |
|
If Web 2.0 was so hot, how about Web 3.0? This has been a recurrent theme of would-be meme-engineers who want to position their startup as the next big thing. |
Nova Spivack started it by describing the as-yet-to-be-revealed Radar Networks as Web 3.0, but now Jason Calacanis has his competing definition, neatly tailored to fit his own mahalo.com. The resulting storm of derision is entirely to be expected.
Now, I of all people should be hesitant to say "Web 3.0 is a stupid idea" because of course, that same criticism was leveled at "Web 2.0." But there are a couple of important distinctions:
Web 2.0 started out as the name of a conference! And that name had a very specific purpose: to signify that the web was roaring back after the dot com bust! The 2.0 bit wasn't about the technology, but about the resurgence of interest in the web. When we came up with the idea back in 2003, a lot of programmers were out of work, and there was a general lack of interest in web applications. But we saw a resurgence coming, and designed a conference to tell the story of what was going to be different this time.
I then spent some serious time trying to identify the characteristics of companies that had survived the dotcom bust and the best of the new companies and sites I saw coming up. That paper, What is Web 2.0?, was a retrospective description based on a broad swath of successful companies, not tailor-made for a single company or project that has yet to make its mark.
So for starters, I'd say that for "Web 3.0" to be meaningful we'll need to see a serious discontinuity from the previous generation of technology.
External Source - For the complete article click here
Source - O'Reilly Radar
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Post News