I'm kind of sick of the "kill Web 2.0" meme... it's easily as tired as the term Web 2.0.
Web 2.0 isn't a version. For O'Reilly it's a marketing term used to sell books, blogs, magazines, and conferences. For everyone else who took part in the infamous definition discussions it was a helpful prompt for talking about where the web is and where it's going. Really, though, Web 2.0 just signifies whatever we're doing with the web right now that is exciting and cool and different from how we used the web 5, 10 or 15 years ago.
Here's an excerpt from a piece I wrote at ReadWriteWeb last year entitled "There is No Web 3.0, There is No Web 2.0 - There is Just the Web" ...
"[The] versioning of the web is silly. Web 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0 is all really just whatever cool new thing we're using the web to accomplish /right now/.
...
Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 -- they don't really exist. They're just arbitrary numbers assigned to something that doesn't really have versions. But the discussion that those terms have prompted have been helpful, I think, in figuring out where the web is going and how we're going to get there; and that's what is important."
So let's dispense with the "Web 2.0 is over, onto the next version!" meme and instead just focus on what the web is, what we can do with it now, and where we can take it in the future. </rant>
Clearly, you havent heard about web 4.0 -- with extra rounded buttons, and fonts starting at 48px. We're talking about community driven concepts here, that synergizes our enterprise collaboration dynamics, and causes a dramatic paradigm shift of long tail immersion.
All kidding aside, I'm totally with you.
I'm also amused when people talk about 'Mobile Web'. There is no such thing.
"Version 2.1 will probably look the way Google Chrome expects: individual apps are no-longer desktop bound, and we all live in something like Google Docs and Gmail"
If this is the future count me out. Not because I have any issues with online apps or Google (ok I do have issues with Goog), mostly because it sounds awfully fucking boring.
Ooo my same applications only .... online! Awesome, now what.
>> "Ooo my same applications only .... online! Awesome, now what."
Ok here's a few reasons why this really is awesome for most people.
* OK, so I don't have to download anything, don't need to worry about spyware/virii/etc
* Cool. I can access my applications from my PC, my friends, my iPhone, a net cafe, the library.
* Ooops, my hard disk died. Oh well, all my data is 'safe'.
* Ooops, my hard disk died. At least I don't have to download and install tons of applications.
Not to mention the fact that those apps instantly get easy access to 'auto-update' 'share' 'collaborate' etc - they're easy to 'multi-userfy'
Desktop software will always have a place, just like not everyone uses webmail. But for the majority, webmail is just way easier for them.
Of course it sounds boring phrased like that. It's utterly unimaginative. But putting old apps online means suddenly they're freer and more able to interact.
I interned at Aviary.com, and the stuff they're doing is basically taking image editing apps and putting them online. Not fun, right? But the fun and the thrill comes in when a community forms around these apps, and the apps are online so now there's no barrier between the tool and the community, and when suddenly you have these really powerful toys helping you connect to people online.
Cirqueti, which is the site I just launched in closed beta, does a similar thing but for writers. You have no idea how exciting it is for writers to be able to take each other's stuff and toy with it and really get intimate with it. Right now there's a wall between you and the things that you use, because they're all private. They're tools, in a sense, but that's all they are. Once it becomes a social thing, then these things become incredibly intimate and even passionate. That's the most exciting thing in the world.
Web 2.0 isn't a version. For O'Reilly it's a marketing term used to sell books, blogs, magazines, and conferences. For everyone else who took part in the infamous definition discussions it was a helpful prompt for talking about where the web is and where it's going. Really, though, Web 2.0 just signifies whatever we're doing with the web right now that is exciting and cool and different from how we used the web 5, 10 or 15 years ago.
Here's an excerpt from a piece I wrote at ReadWriteWeb last year entitled "There is No Web 3.0, There is No Web 2.0 - There is Just the Web" ...
"[The] versioning of the web is silly. Web 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0 is all really just whatever cool new thing we're using the web to accomplish /right now/.
...
Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 -- they don't really exist. They're just arbitrary numbers assigned to something that doesn't really have versions. But the discussion that those terms have prompted have been helpful, I think, in figuring out where the web is going and how we're going to get there; and that's what is important."
Link: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/there_is_no_web_30_ther...
So let's dispense with the "Web 2.0 is over, onto the next version!" meme and instead just focus on what the web is, what we can do with it now, and where we can take it in the future. </rant>