Over at Digital Axle, Ana Yoerg talks about the latest "stick a number after Web" absurdity: Web 2.5.
I had enought trouble with "Web 2.0" but I've grudgingly come to admit it means something. Of course, "2.0" is just a nifty way to say "this has become something different" - in this case, something truly interactive and user-driven.
But it's not a goddamn software release, people.
The reason that I can deal with the "Web 2.0" terminology (yes, I'm very cranky about new buzzwords) is that the shift from a web that primarily put information in front of users and enabled some structured communications and transactions with them into something that's much more malleable from the user's point of view really is a fundamental change.
But whenever I read some 2.5 or 3.0 definition, it's all just adding to bling to that. Vertical search! Communities! Folks, there have been online communities since people were dialing up into them to access somebody's bulletin board server running on an Amiga in the basement. This is not a new paradigm. These are features.
Something might come along worthy of the name "Web 3.0." But I suspect it won't be anything like the web as we know it, and might have more to do with what's now available via the web becoming more of a pervasive network accessible via many devices.
Mostly, though, I hope that when that does happen, nobody calls it "Web 3.0."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
John,
I just love it when you go all cranky!
Hey, what if we called it "Mary's Web?" Gets us away from numbers ;-)
But seriously, we do tend to get so wrapped up naming things, competing to come up with some sexy buzzy spin - that we miss the real meaning and potential.
The only way Im going to accept web 2.5 is if its a robust, fully-integrated solution that delivers proven Return on Investment (ROI).
And it DAMN well better help me work faster, cheaper and more effeciently, while adding to both my top and bottom line.
Im just going to assume its scalable and dynamic.
Post a Comment