Web 3.0 anyone?

B

brianluce

Carbonite Member
I've noticed that web 2.0 is a cool thing to talk about at Starbucks and parties. Social networking, Trendy fonts, wikis, user generated content, that's web 2.0. Boring.

So what about web 3.0? No one knows what that is. So why can't we say web 3.0 is a paradigm switch from text and picture based websites to video based websites. A web3.0 site will effectively be a TV channel. A site with little or no graphics, the site would exist purely to support video. . Your own network.
Not boring.

Obviously this is well underway (youtube etc). The studios have gone to war with the WGA over internet content, Video based internet content specifically. I just thought it was time to try and frame it and give it a cool name for those Starbuck's conversations.
 
This is totally not a dig at you, so don't take it personally.

From my (albeit limited) experience, I find web 2.0 meant something at some point, but its been buzz worded beyond all recognition. Most people that I find talking about web 2.0 also find themselves going on and on about 'new media' and have no real grasp on any of it. It just sounds smart to be talking about it (as you alluded to).

/end rant

There are no revisions (versions) of the web. There's just the web, it's still very much in its infancy; I know when I was growing up I didn't become TC 2.0 when I turned two years old. So let's all stop trying to qaulify everything and just go learn some Ajax.

/end rant 2.0

:beer:
 
I like this idea. You'd just need servers with massive bandwidth, and colossal drive space. If you don't want to call it Web 3.0, try something like Web TV.

wait a minute....
 
snowleopard said:
I like this idea. You'd just need servers with massive bandwidth, and colossal drive space. If you don't want to call it Web 3.0, try something like Web TV.

wait a minute....
Click to expand...

You know what, I don't really understand what goes on behind the curtain, all I know is I can pay $3 a month to 1and1, get a free diy website builder, click an icon that says "Flv" and next thing I know I've got a video playing on the web. All this on a Pentium 4 desktop that literally requires me to beat it with my fist to boot up.

The pipelines keep getting bigger and the prices smaller, looks to me like what's needed is content.

Brian 9.0
 
Last edited:
TC said:
This is totally not a dig at you, so don't take it personally.

From my (albeit limited) experience, I find web 2.0 meant something at some point, but its been buzz worded beyond all recognition. Most people that I find talking about web 2.0 also find themselves going on and on about 'new media' and have no real grasp on any of it. It just sounds smart to be talking about it (as you alluded to).

:
Click to expand...

I totally agree. I've heard a lot of versions of what web 2.0 is or isn't. As a concept it has totally become convoluted and fragmented. It's ultimate destiny I predict will be a font type.

Regards to web 3.0, if we're talking about a sea change in the web, it deserves a name and it's potentially useful as a marketing device as well. Look at all the mileage they've gotten out of web 2.0.
 
not every site can run off soley video.

I wish my hosting would get cheaper, this $1000 a month is getting ollllllllllld.
 
"Web 1.0" = Provider generated content. "Home pages", company websites, online stores, news outlets, etc...
Creation of (good) content can cost both time and money, but they payoffs in getting your message (or product) across can be much bigger than the investment.

"Web 2.0" = User generated content. Blogs, forums, youtube, wikipedia, etc...
Once a structure is provided, content creation costs are minimal. But only with a successful (active) user base can the site itself payoff. The provider, the "host", doesn't have to worry about generating content, only moderating & controlling it to their wishes. The guys who made YouTube never needed to shoot a single frame of video to make the site successful (I don't know if they did, just a hypothetical example), nore did the creators of wikipedia need to actually *know* anything, or Flickr take a single photo, or Drew Curtis ever write a news article to create Fark.



So, with the hosts making content for web 1.0 and the user's making it for 2.0 ... what distinction could be made for web 3.0? Created by computers perhaps? like Google News? - probably not as Google News doesn't create content, it only organizes it (like all of the massively successful Google in fact).

There are sure huge developments on the web, and computing in general; more online, mobile media is *huge*, video of course is playing a big part, as is audio, and of course content integration and convergence across platforms. But can we really distinguish anything as the next "version" (based on what we know now)?


The web, and the Internet in general, is just a system for communication between people. The message, the content, is king. One-way it's known as web 1.0, two-way we now call web 2.0. But how many ways can we actually send content, in how many ways can people communicate?


- Mikko
 
mikkowilson said:
. But can we really distinguish anything as the next "version" (based on what we know now)?



- Mikko
Click to expand...
Why not? we can observe a trend: the gradual shift to video based content--the ascent of video based sites (nothing is bigger than Youtube right now), we can observe a billion dollar war between the Hollywood studios and their content creators over internet video content, and from that we can assume a paradigm shift in the web. People don't pay $9 on weekends to look at slide shows and read text, they pay it to watch full motion film. This is a logical transition for the web as connection speeds improve. It needs a name, how about web 3.0?
 
I think www3 is more about cross-referencing. Intuitive, dynamic information access across the entire net. Everything is better integrated. Feature-sets like more video or gui may be a part of it, but the underlying data management is the bigger story.

e
 
brianluce said:
Why not? we can observe a trend: the gradual shift to video based content--the ascent of video based sites (nothing is bigger than Youtube right now), we can observe a billion dollar war between the Hollywood studios and their content creators over internet video content, and from that we can assume a paradigm shift in the web. People don't pay $9 on weekends to look at slide shows and read text, they pay it to watch full motion film. This is a logical transition for the web as connection speeds improve. It needs a name, how about web 3.0?
Click to expand...


But YouTube is already 'classified' as "web 2.0" .. the content (the videos) is user-generated.

- Mikko
 
mikkowilson said:
But YouTube is already 'classified' as "web 2.0" .. the content (the videos) is user-generated.

- Mikko
Click to expand...

Youtube? That's sooooo two years ago...

Ya, but my point is that youtube reflects a paradigm shift--from font/photo based content to full motion video content--what makes youtube web 2.0 is that it's user generated content, just as like this forum.

As we've said, no one seems to agree exactly what web 2.0 is, but one thing, no one has said it has anything to do with web 3.0--which, as everyone knows, is all about video...:D:D
 
Thing is, the web "versions" (stupid terms really) refer to biggest shift: the source of the content ... they don't at all reference the type of the content.

If I post a video on my website, it's web 1.0
If I let you post your video on my website for your friends to view, then it's web 2.0


- Mikko
 
mikkowilson said:
Thing is, the web "versions" (stupid terms really) refer to biggest shift: the source of the content ... they don't at all reference the type of the content.

If I post a video on my website, it's web 1.0
If I let you post your video on my website for your friends to view, then it's web 2.0


- Mikko
Click to expand...

But what if you created a site whose sole purpose was to support a video, that the site's content was all contained within that video?

To my knowledge, that's a new paradigm--a new way to conceive the web. In your examples, those are videos that are ancillary to the site's primary content. I'm suggesting websites as TV channels. I'm not talking about user generated interactive video sites like youtube. Here's an example www.ghost.tv.
 
mikkowilson said:
Thing is, the web "versions" (stupid terms really) refer to biggest shift: the source of the content ... they don't at all reference the type of the content.

If I post a video on my website, it's web 1.0
If I let you post your video on my website for your friends to view, then it's web 2.0


- Mikko
Click to expand...

So if I let someone post their video on your site...that's web 3.0?
 
Brian;
My point is that the type of the content - including the way it's portrayed - doesn't matter.

If that entire site's content is contained in video, and you made the video, then it's web 1.0. If the entire site's content was in video that others made, then it's 2.0




The distinction between 1.0 and 2.0 simply refers to who made what's on the site; that is all.

- Mikko
 
DeSica said:
So if I let someone post their video on your site...that's web 3.0?
Click to expand...

No, that's a banning. :evil:




Seriously though, yeah, you're on the right track to what sort of thing could possibly qualify. Or at least, how it could qualify.


- Mikko
 
But what if it's a site, made entirely of video, that shows someone posting traditional web content on someone else's website? :evil:
 
mikkowilson said:
Brian;
My point is that the type of the content - including the way it's portrayed - doesn't matter.

If that entire site's content is contained in video, and you made the video, then it's web 1.0.

- Mikko
Click to expand...

I know of no such sites though. There are always jpegs, text, banners, links to other pages with more text, links, photos. I've never seen a site like ghost.tv. Have you? It's a new look and method of delivery so I don't think you can jam it into an old paradigm like 1.0.

second point: By most accounts, the definitions of web 1.0 and 2.0 are dynamic,vague, nebulous, amorphous; so we're not hidebound to these definitions. That being the case, we can call these web trends and transformations what we want. Something like ghost.tv sure doesn't feel like old school 1990's web surfing to me and I think it needs a new label.

Some people are already dismissive of this--maybe it *is* stupid, but as someone whose been on the net before Netscape Navigator existed, I can say without reservation that the internet started as a literary medium and still is. Visit any webmaster discussion forum, you won't see people talking about video. They're talking fonts, jpegs, code, layouts (TRADITIONAL WEB CONTENT), nothing about video--it's always ancillary. So What I'm talking about is a complete transformation from the literary to the visual. It's already happening, but incrementally and so I don't think I'm divining the present. What I'm saying is it might be worthwhile to get in front of the wave. And one way you do that is defining it and labeling it. Web 3.0.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top