07 Oct

Web 3.0, the “official” definition – not!

Jason McCabe Calacanis has come up with the “official” definition of Web 3.0:

Web 3.0 is defined as the creation of high-quality content and services produced by gifted individuals using Web 2.0 technology as an enabling platform.

…and a very lame definition that is. I’m sorry.

Inherent in the definition of a major milestone or “version” (such as 1.x, 2.x, and 3.x) is something big, a big change, a big impact…

Web 2.0 was about openness, and user content and services (anyone’s content and services), and the collective social influence and effects. But Web 3.0, per Jason, is about exclusion: about high-quality content, by gifted individuals.

Who cares if the content is high-quality? or was created by gifted individuals? That is not the point. The Web is and will continue to be about enabling people, gifted or not, to create content, crappy or not, and share such content, and in the future, about the meaning of content and the interconnections between them (intelligence and semantic), and as it continues to evolve, about non-people (other sources of information) being part of this highly-social Web of today.

What blows my mind is that Jason’s definition is so relative: my crappy content might be high-quality to others; and that is the beauty of the Web.

Jason’s definition is a step back, it is an excluding path, and it just won’t happen that way. So in short, I totally disagree with Jason.

Since we are in this topic, I’ll say again what I said before on The Web x.0, past, present and future. But today I will add that “information ubiquity”, specifically delivered via the mobile handset, and physical-to-virtual world connections that extend to the Web, is going to be a big part of the next Web.


Update: I just noticed the Tim O’Reilly had written about this exact same thing, see Today’s Web 3.0 Nonsense Blogstorm.

3 thoughts on “Web 3.0, the “official” definition – not!

  1. Pingback: Taptology - Taptu’s Mobile Chemistry Blog » Blog Archive » Carnival of the Mobilists #94: The Worldwide Connected

  2. “Web 1.0 was about porn and stock quotes. Web 2.0 is all about lolcats”

    Don’t see how his concept of Web 3.0 fits into what has to be the most definitive definition of 1.0 and 2.0 yet, so I think it’s best to file under “up his own arse”

  3. I would emphasize on “high-quality service” not content in this definition and in conjunction with your accent on “information ubiquity, specifically delivered via the mobile handset” this gives the ‘next’ Mobile Web 2.0 that is a real extension to the Internet if it would have a ‘standard hardware platform’ as a basis for its future development.

    Not on a software level (that doesn’t mean a lot without a standard platform) as it is usually being discussed but ‘exactly’ on a ‘hardware’ level – the Internet usage has got a boost only on a standard Intel x86 PC platform availability for users along with the rise of Windows applications development on this platform in the mid-90s.

    Such high-quality service requires maximum screen area for simultaneous placing of navigation tools (ads) and content for developers and comfort for users accessing it. Let’s compare an iPhone and the Cell PC (two connected touch-sensitive displays using a standard MotoRAZR form factor) – dimensions – 61×115 and 53×103 mm – screen area – the Cell PC has 1.5 bigger than iPhone. Even new Intel Moorestown platform (42×145 mm) has smaller screen area than a Cell PC.

    That’s the base for Mobile Web 2.0 development on a x86 architecture of Intel Silverthorne processor for porting fully-functional ‘desktop’ applications on the Cell PC platform.

    iPhone is already an example of this type of porting in case of Mac OS X. As the fact of life. Next step – an efficient dual-display UI with a standard cell phone form factor to replace them for ‘every’ cell phone user. You know, nobody will do it unless the same compact device is offered. That’s real Mobile Web 2.0 – if anyone is concerned about information ubiquity right now. Microsoft? Google?

Comments are closed.