digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Web 3.0: When Web Sites Become Web Services

readwriteweb.com — As more and more of the Web is becoming remixable, the entire system is turning into both a platform and the database. Yet, such transformations are never smooth. For one, scalability is a big issue. And of course legal aspects are never simple.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • NoOneButMe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Cant predict 3.0 with 2.0 technology. Hopefully we'll get a better term then '3.0' as well by the time it comes around.
    • Landonr, on 06/30/2008, -0/+17Hold on a minute.. Wasn't Web 2.0 Web Services, Or something very similar? I'm calling shenanigans!
    • NX910a, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8When is the Web 3.0 release candidate going to come out?
    • Sagags, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3but im just getting used to Web 2.0, and I dont even know what it really means!
    • Dested, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Will this be released as a patch to the current web, or will we have to do a full upgrade?
    • axiomflash, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2wheres web 6.0?
    • SoCalDissident, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Web 3.0 - Now with 50% cliches than Web 2.0!
    • superpotential, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5apt-get install web-3.0.1.2-i386
    • randyzaia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If the term "Web 3.0" actually catches on I'm stabbing myself repeatedly in the eyeball.
    • phatvolvo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2is it out of beta yet?
    • Alexx3k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Sorry but that was one of the worst articles I've read for a long time.

      I'm not a 'web 2.0' hater, on the other hand a supporter. But so many people miss it's true meaning and what it has slowly come to mean to the internet. There never will be a 'web 3.0' because the 'web 2.0' when you strip away all the hype and spin (ajax, style, community power) is just a model for the internet that 'works'. The .com boom was powered by web 1.0 and it just collapsed under it's own flawed system and weight in the 2001 .com bust - it's whole concept and revenue model was fatally flawed. As with any new platform it takes a while to work out it's revenue model. Web 2.0 is about a 'fixed' model of the internet, largely pioneered by google, giving power to the user, and not charging them for it (the VC's of the .com boom would have rather cut their hands off than do that). Unless there is another .com boom and bust (which, provided this model really does work, there won't be) there never will be a web 3.0 ... the concept of 'what defines' web 2.0 will simply continue to evolve and develop as we see the internet become richer, more interactive and secure a realistic long-term business model.

      The writer of this article on the other hand seems to thing that by introducing an API, ajax and javascript styles to give the user a richer-experience is worthy of the title 3.0, when in fact, those concepts date back to pre .com boom (take Viaweb for example).
    • squegie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@mixxoys

      I will personally pistol-whip the next person that says shenanigans!
    • Ryosen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If the term "Web 3.0" actually catches on I'm stabbing randyzaia repeatedly in the eyeball.
    • bioskope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Web 3.0 = Skynet

      Mark my words
    • DamnLogins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The marketing guys will decide to slide right by Web 3.0 and into Web 7.0 :¬)
  • clinch67, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1what a joke lol no one's going to invest in it.
  • cypresso, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3who the hell told them they could coin web 3.0
  • joel2600, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4this migration will be slowwwwww... it's all about advertising

    yes, you can offer everything out there on the internet as services, but then if you offer just data connections, you lose your face, you lose your ability to advertise.

    this is the sole reason this will not happen
    • tempusrob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sorry, I totally meant to dig you up ...

      Such tiny rating buttons... :[
    • Antac, on 01/07/2008, -0/+0I want to agree with you, but every time you put doubt in the future and what people can do with stuff like this, somebody always comes out with some unique working concept that seems to catch on like a wildfire. Stuff like Skype.
      Besides people always adapt to this kind of stuff.
  • Satanael, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7If Web 1.0 was able to last through the 90s and into the new millennium, I think 2.0 should get about the same mileage.
    • omenmedia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7But buzzwords get old real quick! Management needs something new, something snappier... how about Web X (eXtreme, to the maX) or iWeb?
    • Switch22, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Agreed, I think the API and web services aspects he was talking about is just an extension of Web 2.0.

      Web 1.0 wasn't considered 2.0 when animated GIFs were implemented. There needs to be a bigger movement amongst the general public, such as web 2.0.
    • noamsml, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Web 1.0 wasn't considered 2.0 when animated GIFs were implemented."

      No, that was a regression to 0.9.
  • sid0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Where's 2.0 SP1?
    • superrcat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5It's not a Microsoft product, so no Service Packs are required.
    • greatblackowl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yep...

      We'll end up seeing Web 2.0.0.1.5 r1 Beta
    • lateralus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2x86 or x64?
  • destro713, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2And further, we must look forward to Web 4.0: when all web services that don't begin with a lowercase i or a capital G are made punishable by death.
  • SierraAlpha, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I wonder what the logos will look like? Because everybody knows thats the only thing that will separate web 2.0 from web 3.0.
    • omenmedia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3...and will they still slap "beta" on them? Or maybe even just "alpha"? Ooh, ooh, maybe "gamma"!
    • scratched, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Instead of plastic looking fonts with reflections and gradients, you'll just have plain ASCII font in pure text format. Logos are for suckers.

      Or if "Web 2.0" gets enough mileage, maybe in 3.0 we'll see some creative stuff done using text but with CSS3 elements such as real rounded corners and shadows.
  • mrdeathgod, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0So if I understand the article correctly, what we really need is to leverage a mashup scraping leverager.
    • k2eric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0that could really leverage the synergies between web 2.0 and web 3.0
    • omenmedia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Meanwhile, in a 1,000 meetings across the world... "As we segway into the synergistic bond between Web 2.0 and Web 3.0, we can really consolidate our strategic prioritisation, build our flexible dynamic response, and form a holistic approach to delivering core real-time enterprise services for our stakeholders."

      Management applauds!

      Someone then asks "What colour will Web 3.0 be?"

      Techies weep profusely.
    • djackmanson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Meanwhile, in a 1,000 meetings across the world... "As we segway into the synergistic bond between Web 2.0 and Web 3.0, we can really consolidate our strategic prioritisation, build our flexible dynamic response, and form a holistic approach to delivering core real-time enterprise services for our stakeholders."

      Help Mummy! The management consultants are going to eat me! And then talk they'll talk about 'interfacing'...wanna go HOME!
  • ziki, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Aren't they releasing a Web 2.5 soon? Along with Sapphire on Wheels?
  • TheActionCombo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1How many gradients and shiny buttons do I need to be web 3.0?
  • MiddleOfNowhere, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2While all the 2.0/3.0 yadda yadda is getting on my nerves, it is interesting to see that the coming technologies are closer to Ted Nelson’s original (read: 1960ies) vision of a Hypertext system than anything we had so far.

    Services that can talk to each other.
    Semantics.
    Transclusion (or call them mashups if you are *not* an old fart :).
    A platform for future micropayment systems where a musician/author/developer can benefit from a million decentralized transactions.

    Looks like we have a few interesting years ahead of us.
  • superrcat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Screw the talk of Web 2.0 and Web 3.0, let's get crap hosted by organizations and government agencies that looks circa 1996 updated to Web 1.0...or at least HTML 4.0.

    Example: http://www.nps.gov/renew/forms.htm

    Note the animated 256 color GIFs and "Under Construction" graphic.
  • meshman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"John Markoff stirred up the pot this weekend by launching Web 3.0, even while good ol’ Web 2.0 is still in beta (or alpha)."

    Really. HE launched it. A freaking newspaper columnist is dictating web standards. Thanks. What consortium or comittee reviewed the doubtless numerous RFC's that were submitted? There were none. Some self-important jackass holds up an apple, calls it an orange... and everyone applauds! What the hell? Who's going to declare Web 4.0 in April and be the next wannabe Internet hero? And... Web 2.0 still in beta? W-T-F? Does anybody have a freaking clue what they're talking about anymore?
  • jaiwithani, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The Web project is getting bloated. Someone should fork it from the Web 2.0 trunk.
    • superrcat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The ones with commit rights have too big of an ego to listen to a suggestion like that.
  • 8270369, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0superrcat: "...let's get crap hosted by organizations and government agencies that looks circa 1996 updated to Web 1.0... Example: http://www.nps.gov/renew/forms.htm"

    Yes, isn't that god-awful frightening. Unless I'm mistaken that's a Frontpage 97 piece of work. Ouch!
  • aspirinetu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i miss web with no numbers :(
  • ngfkjiohodns, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Web 5.5.6.1 beta special limited edition release with collector's keychain available soon!
  • tastethevenom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is inaccurate, bogus, spam. Web 3.0 is not emerging at the moment.

    What the writer is trying to pass as "Web 3.0" is nothing revolutionary -- APIs have been around well before Web 2.0, and mashups are just another branch off of 2.0.

    If right now you're looking to be the next O'Reilly by defining the next 'version of the Web': don't. You'll look like a fool.

    If you're looking for a definition of Web 3.0: wait. Maybe it's the "Semantic Web", maybe it's not. We'll see in 8 years.
  • goettel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's right, you didn't get the web when it took of, so add a version number to it and try to lay claim. Then add another, and another, failing at each stage to grasp anything essential about it.

    It's people like that who make me feel secure in the knowledge I'll be buying my drugs and booze with their ignorance way, way into the next decade.
  • Pirate45, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This whole Web 2.0 and 3.0 crap is almost as band as trying to be the first to label a musical genre.
  • Lexomatic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Bah, if anything Web 3 will simply be a change in the flow of the continuous cycle of centralization/decentralization. Once upon a time, only a dumb terminal sat on your desk and a mainframe somewhere else did all the work.

    Then PCs came along and people wrote pretty gui desktop applications.

    Then LANs and WANs came of age, and the desktop applications started talking to a central database.

    Then the internet came a long and everything started to centralize again. Web 2 just improved the ability with which
    your browser can talk to the central server and database.

    Web 3, or whatever it will be called, might well be something where software components are downloaded so once again
    your computer on the desk can do more of the work. You still keep your connection to the centralized data. Browsers are
    starting to get more complicated and having a browser that expands in functionality based on your requirements to access distributed applications
    and databases might be what one day will hate to call "Web 3.0".

    Alternate names might be:
    Web 2011 (aka Microsoft's change in naming schemes)
    Web Panther, Web Redback, Web Taipan , Web Sloth, or whatever animal someone can come up with to try and make it sound 'kool'.
  • investr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0SaaS
    --------
    http://www.salesforce.com
    http://www.qualys.com (free trial)
  • noamsml, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Whoa, whoa, take it slow. It seems like all projects now are jumping major version numbers every time one feature changes. Personally, I think the web should go the way GNOME and the Linux kernel do, and use major version numbers only for a general revamp, using minor versions for simple feature upgrades and bugfixes, and having all stable versions have an even minor version number.

    I, for one, welcome Web 2.2 (right now it's still 2.1.45, though).
  • tlehman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I believe the chose Web 3.0 to get people's attention, they got mine. I think the number scheme is lame.
  • redwallhp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Web 2.0 SP? You mean Web 2.0.1 :P.

    Web 4.0 is when you get a persistant web access in your brain, right? Check your email while you play video games for free at best buy.
  • ahbab, on 05/13/2008, -0/+0very very thanks
    I miss the mouth that says the loveliest words. I miss the hair that every woman is envious of.
    thanks
    http://www.ahba2b.com/news
    http://www.ahba2b.com
    http://www.ahba2b.com/vb
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.