The lastest marketing buzz and propaganda features the term web 3.0. Ahhhh!!!! An s.technorati search reveals 608 high authority posts using this term in the past six months.
We had a hard enough time understanding 2.0 (the movement from static to truly social technology and content). It was hard to constantly explain this horrific cliche to the masses. Then once everyone started messaging anything new as 2.0 it lost its value (image from F1 blog).
Like Scott Baradell says 2.0 is so 2005. So to be fresh I guess marketers and PR types have attempted to brand new technology advancement as 3.0. Why? What’s the big paradigm shift to justify this terminology?
Propagating a new cliche — 3.0 – just seems like bad marketing to me. When I complained about the over proliferation of 2.0 it seemed appropriate to say:
“Webolution” (thank you, Michael Pranikoff for this coined word) is a process that will continue to develop, and move beyond current conceptions. Technological change will further impact us. What are they going to call the localized craze that’s sure to follow the GIS-induced geographic tie into everything user generated? It’s best to create a brand name that meets the product’s value proposition to its community?
It seems appropriate to say it again. Web 3.0 only confuses people, and does not explain what the actual technology does.
I still maintain that we’ve now reached Web 2.0.1 beta – but most of the country is still in Web 1.5.10 SP2.
Hey Geoff, very interesting topic. Aside from the marketers using it as the “next” buzz word, there’s a real movement and technology behind it. It probably won’t be called Web 3.0 at the end of the day…many are leaning toward the semantic web, calling the Internet, one big database for the future. Whereas Web 2.0 was about dynamic relationships, the next movement is about intelligence and connecting the backend to make the Web smarter across the board.
http://bub.blicio.us/?p=432
Geoff,
Most of us who use this stuff don’t know or really care what Web 2.0 or 3.0 mean. We just want the tools. I’ve gone to identifying social media as a packet of strategies and tools that need to be integrated with the traditional strategies and tools that came before. I don’t really care about the technology; my clients and I only care about the results. The nuances can be left to those who care about such things. If a tool works great, I’ll use it. If it doesn’t work, I won’t. And by work I mean grow a business, serve customers wants and needs and produce results for both.
Lewis, I agree. Marketing needs to deliver relevant messaging.
Brian, always educational. Yes, 3.0 is already losing that semantic touch thanks to spin. Really, it shouldn’t be called anything but what it is, the numeric stuff just messes people up. But database driven web techs have been very useful for enterprises — salesforce.com, Eloqa — etc. so these advancements will be welcome.
Ike, very funny as usual.
Thanks all for the drive by.
Excactly Geoff forget the number naming try this
Web Descartes – I think of it therefore it can be –
“so Mr/Ms (title) what relationships do you want to have with (insert group name)? How open are you willing to be, and oh yes about commitment…?”
Where exactly will the web go beyond data input to advanced social tools and blogs from our computing modules?
I don’t care if we call it 1, 2, or 3.0. But if we are going to jump from 2 to 3 in the span of two years, what happened to all of the other versions of 2; like 2.1, 2.2 and so on…
Just like Jeff and Brian have published – “Now is Gone”, and that’s a fact.
Man, I’m so bummed I didn’t see this when posted… I would have then said: “I’ll have to change my Web Poo Point Doh to Web Pee Point Doh.” It would have been fresher then. :sigh: