What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
Who Gets To Use Unsold Cruise Cabins at Huge Discounts view!
howlifeworks.com - How to access once-in-a-lifetime trips at significantly less than full price
189 Comments
- kevinrose, on 10/29/2007, -13/+386Make the madness stop. If people really start using the term Web 3.0, I think I'm going to turn off the servers.
- bmatherlyjr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+253I'll just wait for Web 2.0 SP 1, thanks :)
- rgoro, on 10/29/2007, -6/+118say the word and I'll turn them off.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+104I dont even know the meaning of web 2.0 still.
- tehWyman, on 08/19/2009, -5/+106Bjax.
- kevinrose, on 10/29/2007, -5/+101Thanks Ron, take down one of the database slaves for a few minutes just as a sign of protest.
- kevinrose, on 10/29/2007, -4/+90he must have killed his own connection... Web 3.0, you win this round!
- mahler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+78"You make the content, we take the profit".
- rgoro, on 10/29/2007, -3/+80Just looking for the best one to choo
- kevinrose, on 10/29/2007, -4/+78That old sun box. Are we still using those?
- OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+62Something about socialism and gradients. Not sure.
- UnRuly25, on 10/10/2007, -2/+49no way on the personal messaging system - the comments (i.e. discussion forums) are just as fun as the news stories.
- rodp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+46Web 3.0 is the Semantic Web and I believe it was correctly described by Schmidt: a "cloud" of data, which can be used by a large number of small, ubiquitous applications.
I have nothing against describing clearly identifiable trends on the web by version numbers, pet names or any other ID. I totally understand it: Web 1.0 was a web with few content providers and many users. Web 2.0 is a web where users are content providers, too. This was made possible by an evolving technology (AJAX, RSS, web services and APIs) and, consequently, application providers who use that technology (blog engines, social networks, etc.).
On the current web, application providers use RSS and APIs to occasionally "open doors" to their data, while they still keep it inside . On the Web 3.0 - the Semantic Web, data will be outside - distributed (see RDF and OWL W3C standards, for example).
I know this concept might be hard to grasp at first, so let me give you an example: If I have a friend in my LinkedIn social network and I open a Facebook account, as well, I'll have to add that same friend again, since LinkedIn's data is owned by LinkedIn and Facebook's by Facebook. On the Semantic Web, the data about me, my friends and our relationships will be distributed - open for all applications. It will be somewhere on the web in a form of RDF/XML and all applications will be able to access it. Application providers, like LinkedIn or Facebook, will then offer me innovative ways to use this omnipresent data. I can use one, two or all applications, on different platforms and for different types of services - it doesn't matter. What matters is that I have access to the same data from any application and I'm not being blackmailed into using any of them just because "all my friends are there" or "all my data is there".
Web 3.0 will be a mother of all mashups and a father of all social networks. - tdous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+38Pssht. It was clearly all about the rounded corners.
- Tivor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+37Web 3.0 - Now with more porn!!!
- cyssero, on 04/18/2009, -4/+28Funniest post I've seen Kevin Rose make :-)
- RobertBogley, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24Eric forgot to mention high quality Full Screen Videos and movies that dont stop half way through with "buffering..."
- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -4/+24"Web 3.0 will be "applications that are pieced together" - with the characteristics that the apps are relatively small, the data is in the cloud, the apps can run on any device (PC or mobile), the apps are very fast and very customizable, and are distributed virally (social networks, email, etc)."
In other words, Web 3.0 will be another lame marketing term for stuff that's already in practice. It'd be nice if they actually worked out something new to do with each 'version' instead of just redescribing it. - svenjick, on 10/10/2007, -6/+25Yawn!
- PTCHFRKR, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20Company names that end in -y or have a vowel missing are Web 2.0.
- PueSi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20Yeah digg is nothing without the random comments, that's why i hate the new comment system, because you cant't see any...
are you listening? - NeilSkoglund, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19web 5.0 - where the internets kicks noobs asses literally.
- PTCHFRKR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17I thought Web 3.0 (for what these version numbers are worth) was about the semantic web? That's what Tim Berners-Lee thinks, at least. Tim Berners-Lee > Eric Schmidt.
- schroeder, on 10/10/2007, -18/+32Once again, reasons we need a personal messaging system...
- hiPpymIck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14"its a marketing term"
- adamrgolf, on 10/10/2007, -6/+20will web 2.0 sp1 fix vista compatibility issues?
- abandonedhero, on 10/29/2007, -0/+13Apparently digging this story to the front page was punishable by killing a server.
"Everytime you say web 3.0, digg kills a server." - MikaelN, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Just wait for Web 95, a significant progression over Web 3.11
- Matrix_Prime, on 10/10/2007, -5/+16I'm going to be defining Web 4.0 next week, stay tuned for that.
- cyberdork, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14pffff... and I just updated to Web 2.0.5b (build 5864)
- NinjaBoy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Soon it will turn out like the amd vs intel war and they will just start making ***** up. "Web x5000"
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12I think I'll skip the 3.0 upgrade and just wait for Web 4.0.
- ShadowSK, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Bisynchronous JavaScript and XML: Code that goes both ways.
- KezG, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Web 7.0 -- applications interlaced with real life, capable of making you orgasm and squirt delicious yoghurt.
- bitspace, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Hasn't anyone learned not to go with the .0 rev of a product? I'm gonna wait for web 3.1.
- raynar, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Web 3.0 = EXTRA glossy icons, needless ajax, and people commenting on my flickr photos.
- Rupan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Also comment left on the post:
Web 1.0: People connecting to the Web (P2W?). i.e. “Wow, I’m on the Internet!”
Web 2.0: People connecting to other People (P2P?) i.e. Social networking, wikis, collaboration, sharing.
Web 3.0: Web apps connecting to web apps on behalf of People to enrich online experiences (W2W?) i.e. The Symantec Web, the Geospatial Web application awareness of context, autonomy from the browser.
Web 4.0: The web become sentient, rises up, conquers the world and enslaves the human race? (W>P?) - sv650touring, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10grammar police say: "Macs don't"
- donnyburnside, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11You've gotta be kidding me. You damned Internet Junkies with your lame marketing ploys!!
- GoatMonkey2112, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7That depends on who you ask. It wasn't really defined by anything that was agreed upon by everyone. We all agree that marketing guys are tools though.
- aflaks, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8digg.com is the perfect example of web 2.0, so is flickr, facebook, my space. You can be a total hag and still somehow contribute to the internet whereas before you would have had to have some kind of html experience in order to put something up. Geocities ruled in web1.0
- flawlessjess, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8will web 3 be users generate content and get a share of revenue instead of the web 2 users generate content and websites keep revenue
- bloodorange, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12Web 2.0 was defined by User-Generated Content - (video, blogs, myspace pages, wikipedia entries, etc.)
- jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Oh no. "Web 3.0" I already throw up when I hear people saying Web 2.0. Please somebody kill me
- Murdats, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5the point of these terms isnt to say Web 3.0 is being released on this date with these features.
its essentially describing and naming a paradigm for information control and management.
as in web2.0 is a different paradigm to how things were done before it became named. sure there were were sites that did web2.0 stuff before the term was coined, but now there are more, and they are more standerdised because of the established paradigm - bfaulk04, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6i downloaded a pirated copy of Web 3.0 yesterday...
- adamrgolf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5u smell like socks
- geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4No no silly, it's Comet.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4web 3 will degenerate content and people will lose money just for surfing
-
Show 51 - 100 of 190 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is