When did we start talking about Web 2.0?
When did everything go from model numbers involving years, to revolving around major version updates? Am I the only one noticing this trend? Social Media is about to hit 2.0, if some people are to be believed about Google Buzz. So when does the Web move on from 2.0 to 3.0?
Here’s what I figure.
1.0 is inception. It’s the basic building blocks of any given structure. Invention. Wireframing. It’s transmission, broadcast – when a small minority own all the tools and the know-how to make real use of a new, infant technology or procedure.
2.0 is interaction. Frameworks have been made, generous contributors have begun to let others in. 2.0 is letters to the editor on any scale, it’s opinion columns, feedback. Flash games.
So what’s 3.0, then? Real interaction. Contribution from distributed sources to any federated frame, where anyone can build on top of anything, given permission, and create something new from what’s been done before with limited necessity of knowledge about the original structure. Computing 3.0 began when computer science began to go out the window. It began when schools started teaching grade 8 kids how to write html. Journalism 3.0 is rolling out now with Twitter and blogging and, yes, even Buzz. Collaboration 3.0 is Google Wave and tools like it, but it began with sharing schema like Dropbox.
Anything 3.0 is when things get really interesting, because (as Clay Shirky said) nothing gets socially interesting until it gets technologically boring.
Just about all technology is boring now. Let the socially interesting period begin.
I’m armed, are you?
About This Post's Author - Ian
Hi! I'm Ian. I'm an online marketing specialist with Modern Earth Web Design. When I'm not working, spending time with my family, or puttering about in various spaces online, I write here, as well as at Thoughtwrestling and Unspeakable Media.This is my blog.
Pingback: Ian M Rountree
Microsoft popularized the idea of version numbers corresponding to the “theoretical” year of release (which they rarely hit, if memory serves). I think that 1.0, 2.0, etc. are a more common way to assign version numbers. It's interesting, too, that Microsoft seems to be returning to this idea with Windows 7.0.
When you say “real” interaction, do you really mean effortless, ubiquitous opportunities for interaction?
I think new opportunities for interaction are being built all the time, every time new technologies get adopted. We're going to abandon some of the less relevant ones on an individual basis, because not filtering would mean overload.
The division for me comes between interacting with a website (re; eCommerce and Flash games) and interacting with a large group of peers (Twitter, real-time web). I'm aware this capability has been around for ages, but wide adoption makes all the difference.
Microsoft popularized the idea of version numbers corresponding to the “theoretical” year of release (which they rarely hit, if memory serves). I think that 1.0, 2.0, etc. are a more common way to assign version numbers. It's interesting, too, that Microsoft seems to be returning to this idea with Windows 7.0.
When you say “real” interaction, do you really mean effortless, ubiquitous opportunities for interaction?
Microsoft popularized the idea of version numbers corresponding to the “theoretical” year of release (which they rarely hit, if memory serves). I think that 1.0, 2.0, etc. are a more common way to assign version numbers. It's interesting, too, that Microsoft seems to be returning to this idea with Windows 7.0.
When you say “real” interaction, do you really mean effortless, ubiquitous opportunities for interaction?
I think new opportunities for interaction are being built all the time, every time new technologies get adopted. We're going to abandon some of the less relevant ones on an individual basis, because not filtering would mean overload.
The division for me comes between interacting with a website (re; eCommerce and Flash games) and interacting with a large group of peers (Twitter, real-time web). I'm aware this capability has been around for ages, but wide adoption makes all the difference.
I think new opportunities for interaction are being built all the time, every time new technologies get adopted. We're going to abandon some of the less relevant ones on an individual basis, because not filtering would mean overload.
The division for me comes between interacting with a website (re; eCommerce and Flash games) and interacting with a large group of peers (Twitter, real-time web). I'm aware this capability has been around for ages, but wide adoption makes all the difference.