From Web 2.0 to 3.0

August 2, 2008 · Filed Under Tech 

Marc Benioff (CEO of salesforce.com) has written an article for TechCrunchIT about the evolution of Web structure. He explains what the future is bringing and what he labels Web 3.0.

The new rallying cry of Web 3.0 is that anyone can innovate, anywhere. Code is written, collaborated on, debugged, tested, deployed, and run in the cloud. When innovation is untethered from the time and capital constraints of infrastructure, it can truly flourish.

From what I interpreted Web 3.0 goes from websites with API or users writing the programs instead of the companies. The clearest example will have to be Facebook. Instead of the company writing programs to make the service better, the users themselves are the one building on top of it and improving it in their own ways. I have small belief that this should be considered Web 3.0, if anything I would name it Web 2.5 . It is a small step forward from user generated data, to users generating software. In any case Web 2.0 is still the leader of things and creating the biggest market. But there is no doubt that user generated software is caching on quick and it is very beneficial for companies. Saving them money and time.

Yasser

Tags: , ,

Bookmarks:

Similar Posts:

Comments

Add to:
| Digg it | RawSugar | Slashdot | Y! MyWeb

Similar posts:

4 Responses to “From Web 2.0 to 3.0”

  1. MiamiWebDesigner on August 5th, 2008 10:01 am

    Like so many tech articles posted since Tim O’Reilly coined the term in 2004, this one references “Web 2.0? as if it were something tangible–or at least a concept with clear, concise definition. It is not. In 2006, Web founder Sir Tim Berners-Lee sagely observed that “nobody knows what it means”:

    http://tinyurl.com/y6ewzy

    In 2007, Michael Wesch put together this video that supposedly “explains what Web 2.0 really is about”:

    http://tinyurl.com/6pdz2q

    It is a cool video. But the message is all about XML and how it can be used to separate form and content. There was no mention of CSS and XHTML, but no matter. I was writing XML parsers in the ’90s, and XHTML/CSS web design pre-dates “Web 2.0? as well.

    And now in 2008, the most honest thing we can say is that “Web 2.0? means whatever the techno-marketeer (ab)using it wants it to mean. Otherwise, why would intelligent people like Isaac O’Bannon still be writing articles asking “What is Web 2.0?”:

    http://tinyurl.com/5solok

    And, why would McKinsey’s just-released best-of-breed report entitled “Building the Web 2.0 Enterprise” …

    http://tinyurl.com/6sxls7

    … include no attempt at defining the term other than to list the “Web 2.0 Tools” that comprise or enable it? And even there, the chief ingredient is identified only as “Web Services”, adding more mystery to the mix as one ethereal term is offered up to explain another.

    As originated in an Onstartups.com website design posting…

    http://tinyurl.com/576sgs

    … “Web 2.0? is like pornography: Nobody has defined it, but you know it when you see it.

    Bruce Arnold, Web Designer, Miami Florida
    http://www.PervasivePersuasion.com

  2. Yasser on August 5th, 2008 12:05 pm

    This is a great point you make. To me Web 2.0 means user generated content. Like YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, etc. You just have to create a platform and the users will fill in the content of the website. Not like in the old days where instead of users posting videos, it would of been a company posting them.

    Thanks for the links too, very informative.

  3. Ironman on August 5th, 2008 1:59 pm

    Is that how they did it in the old days? WOW, I just learned something very interesting.

  4. Finding A Good Domain Name. | Yasser Has Things To Say on December 24th, 2008 12:59 am

    [...] always remember that sometimes weird names work, if you don’t believe me then ask Google. Web 2.0 usually have the oddest most creative name and they suggest a website called Bustaname for people [...]