Web 2007 is here … or somethin!
Damn, I take a few days off of blogging and the New York Times (er, John Markoff) goes and invents Web 3.0.
Huh?
I’ve done more than 50 interviews in the past three months and collected hundreds of business cards and I’ve NEVER heard anyone talking about Web 3.0.
Why am I left out of this joke? Ahh, the joke is on me.
Well, I was talking with several Web leaders tonight (seriously, I was) and we decided that Web 3.0 just won’t do.
So, tonight, we’re announcing Web 2007.
It’s just like Web 2006 except it has more widgets. Works on Windows Vista (which will ship in 2007). Apple will make it better (they are shipping a new OS too).
In best renaming tradition, it will embrace and extend Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 concepts. So, of course, Google will put ads on it.
Ray Ozzie will demonstrate a cool application framework for Web 2007 at Mix2007. David Heinemeier Hansson will hit back with Ruby on Rails 2007
Dave Winer will build OPML 2007 for moving your feeds from Web 2.0-oriented RSS readers to Web 2007-oriented RSS readers. Of course, RSS 2007 is the same as RSS 2006, but wait until you see Atom 2007!
Now, the important stuff. We need a “ready for Web 2007″ logo. Someone needs to design new rounded-corner graphics.
But, Valleywag nailed this — there’s no story here. So, move along.
Whatever the geeks are inventing it won’t be first seen in the New York Times and it probably won’t be called Web 3.0.
How did this get on the front page of the New York Times, though?
Other news here on Web 2007:
VC Peter Rip says the recombinant Web is coming. I agree with him, by the way, about Web 2.0 Summit. There weren’t many geeks there. Lots of CEOs and VCs, though. For a guy like me who wants to get those people on camera, it was pretty good.
Ross Mayfield says that Web 3.0 will be known as a marketing disaster.
Greg Linden says “cut the “Web 3.0″ hype. MY NOTE? Oh, wait Greg, until you see Web 2007 hype. It’ll take the Web 2.0 hype and multiply it by the Web 3.0 hype. It’ll be like “hype squared!” Heheh. Damn, I’m almost hyped up enough to create a PowerPoint presentation and start going up and down Sand Hill Road and see if I can get a Web 2007 company funded without having a product, a team, a business model, or, even, a blog. GASP. Can Scoble do it? ;-)
Dave Winer asks “does hype ever go out of style?“
The rest of TechMeme goes link happy, which, might just be what the New York Times was going for. So “Web 2.0.”
Web 2007 will be about what DOES NOT get linked to. Steve Gillmor style. I wonder if the New York Times can sense the gesture I’m sending it? Note I didn’t link to the Times.
Of course Dan Farber will write about Web 2007 and Nick Carr will say it’s irrelevant.
Oh, Nick reminded me to get a URL. Damn, Web2007.com is already gone.
I’m going back to do more chores for Maryam. You all have fun with this whole Web thing, OK? In the meantime I’m preparing a bevy of stuff for ScobleShow, which is the first approved Web 2007 site. Well, we will be as soon as we turn on our new API, our new iTunes/iPod feed, our new rounded corner graphics, our new social networking program, and our new hype machine which will be covered in next week’s New York Times.
Sigh.
Powered By 
November 12th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
[...] Scoble: “I’ve done more than 50 interviews in the past three months and collected hundreds of business cards and I’ve never heard anyone talking about Web 3.0.” [...]
November 12th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
You da best! Rock on.
November 12th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
Was that an attempt at humor. BTW, what happened to taking the week off? Is that Step 0?
November 12th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
LayZ: nah, this isn’t funny.
It’s what happens when I don’t blog for a weekend. For me, that’s the same as taking a week off.
November 12th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
[...] UPDATE: Looks like Robert Scoble and others are now picking up on this story and you should read their perspectives. [...]
November 12th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
Web 2007 is so microsofty, why can’t we call it Goldfish?
November 12th, 2006 at 11:18 pm
Goldfish it is…
Web 2007 Starter Edition, Web 2007 Home Edition N, Web 2007 Home Basic Edition, Web 2007 Home Premium, Web 2007 Gamer Edition, Web 2007 Professional Edition, Web 2007 Business Edition, Web 2007 Plus!, Web 2007 Professional Plus! Edition, Web 2007 Mobile Edition, Web 2007 CE, Web 2007 Ultimate Edition, Web 2007 Server, Web 2007 Data Center…
November 13th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Great, yet more learning to do. I’m soon going to need 2 heads to take all this information in!
November 13th, 2006 at 12:26 am
Justin: you must have missed the point. There’s nothing real here. I’d spend your time learning Ruby on Rails. That’ll be a more marketable skill over the next few years than reading up about Web 3.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:31 am
Google’s Eric Schmidt used Web 3.0 earlier this year:
http://www.valleywag.com/tech/eric-schmidt/hideous-jargon-watch-google-ceo-drops-the-30-bomb-197239.php
November 13th, 2006 at 1:15 am
I’m sure web innovation is geometric, not arithmetic.
So, um, (Web ^ 2) ?
November 13th, 2006 at 3:28 am
[...] He, and many others also touch upon the Web 3.0 article from yesterday’s times, though Robert Scoble had the most fun with it. [...]
November 13th, 2006 at 3:58 am
You are way too funny. Forget Web 3.0. We are not even getting the rest of the world to move from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0. Do you know there are thousands of bad sites out there?
November 13th, 2006 at 4:45 am
I wrote about web 3.0 on my blog way back on 17th October, 2006 . My idea of web 3.0 is totally different. Whatever you discuss here, you can call it web 2007 or web 2.1 or whatever..
It’s atleast worth thinking about what I said on 17/10/2006 over here: http://pradx.wordpress.com/2006/10/17/web-30-possibilities/
thank you,
Pradeep
November 13th, 2006 at 5:19 am
[...] Web 2007 is here … or somethin! « Scobleizer - Tech Geek Blogger Scoble feels he is left out of the joke with regard to Web 3.0, so what does a A-Lister do? Decides to rename it Web 2007. Have to agree at the end of the day it will not be call Web 3.0, now Web 2007, sorry Robert. (tags: web3.0 web2.0 web2007 Future) [...]
November 13th, 2006 at 6:29 am
Well I used ‘Web 3.0′ in a blog post in June, and back then I mentioned I wasn’t the first… Check out http://www.joiningdots.net/blog/2006/06/changing-habits.html
November 13th, 2006 at 6:39 am
I meant to say just that…although it might not have come out like that..
November 13th, 2006 at 6:57 am
I don’t think your post grasped what the Web 3.0 concept really is. If Web 1.0 was cumulating information and Web 2.0 was the ability to rehash and present that information in different forms, than Web 3.0 will provide the correct information at the correct time and place. No longer the need to skim through tens and hundreds of results on search engines, no longer will we need to figure out how to connect this form of information to that in order to create new ways of presenting information.
The new web will understand the giving information to create the correct formulations for our needs.
November 13th, 2006 at 8:06 am
Web 3.0? Laggards. I’m already detailing Web 4.0 and it’s absolutely amazing (hint: it includes Pamela Anderson and licking!)
Oh, and Robert… web40.info is available :P So tempting, eh?!
November 13th, 2006 at 9:00 am
[...] In the past 24 hours, every prominent blogger in the tech world has posted some response (and most not so positive) on the NY Times piece outlining the advent of Web 3.0. Robert Scoble employed the passive aggressive route: scarcely acknowledging the existence of Markoff’s minted terminology, instead employing Web 2007. Highly ironic considering Markoff’s point that semantics (as in a global network and not simply mash-ups) is the crucial distinction between 2.0 and 3.0. Considering all the superfluous fuss over bubbles as of late, we concur. [...]
November 13th, 2006 at 9:08 am
Nice post. I don’t like the buzzwords-jumping, too :)
But I do like the idea of a meta-description language (RDF?) that simplifies searches and allows the software to “learn” a little bit, like Last.fm does with my music… it’s such an old stuff that now it’s time we do it ;D
November 13th, 2006 at 10:00 am
I remember a quip from your buddy Bill earlier in March at MIX06. He was ending his 1-on-1 conversation with Tim O’Reilly.
http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/2006/03-20MIX.aspx
TIM O’REILLY: All right, well, I think we’ve got to wrap here. Listen, can I get you to come to our Web 2.0 conference in November? I’d love to continue the conversation.
BILL GATES: Well, by then you might have to call it Web 3.0.
TIM O’REILLY: That’s true. Let’s see what makes sense. (Laughter.) Okay, thank you very much.
BILL GATES: Thanks a lot, Tim, good job.
(I guess it didn’t work out)
November 13th, 2006 at 10:17 am
Can’t we just go with the new, new web?
November 13th, 2006 at 10:34 am
[...] Now the whole blogosphere is abuzz debating 2.0 v 3.0 v ??? Nick Bradbury states: “This weekend much of the geekosphere was buzzing about the “Web 3.0″ article in the NY Times, but from where I stand, Web 3.0 does not validate.” Tim O’Reilly, Mr. Web 2.0 himself, isn’t on board, and Robert Scoble wrote a fun piece referring to it as Web 2007. Dan Farber seems to sit on the fence a little bit, but then Nick at Valleywag (nice redesign) goes straight for the jugular: In short, the Times wants to announce a trend just in case that trend actually materializes in the next few months. But don’t bet on it — Google smelled a dud and didn’t touch this story, and neither should anyone looking for the real next big thing. [...]
November 13th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
[...] Maybe Web 2.0 (or I guess we’re calling it Web 3.0, or 2.2, or the semantic web or Web 2007 or whatever, I still can’t figure it out), is in a bubble. Maybe there is too much money chasing too few really good ideas. Maybe the meteoric rise of Google’s stock price isn’t a good thing. And maybe sometimes it takes a gossip writer to point some of the excesses out. And if nothing else, this was something that Nick was good at and was a useful role that somebody in the Valley needed to play. [...]
November 13th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
[...] Predictably, the blogosphere is all over the Web 3.0 meme, with notable responses from Nick Bradbury who says “The Semantic Web may happen, but if it does, it’s going to be a helluva lot messier than the architects would like,” and ex-Microsoftie Robert Scoble who proposes “Web 2007″ as a much more hypeworthy name, Tim O’Reilly (”I was surprised to see Markoff referring to this as “Web 3.0″, when that very fact is the heart of what we’ve been calling Web 2.0.”), and, of course, Dave Winer. [...]
November 14th, 2006 at 9:49 am
As an educator- the buzz is extremely heavy about Web 2.0- we have been beaten over the head with it, and it does seem to hold promise for re-thinking education delivery…HOWEVER…we are still dealing with Teacher 1.0 and still trying to find the upgrade path…
In typical marketing fashion, it seems like we are on to the next big thing…I’m sure that in short order every school district in the country will be booking Web 3.0/2007 consultants (at considerable expense) to explain why we can’t exist without all of the great apps. (if 2.0 was the read/write web will 3.0 sing and dance?)
Kudos for heralding this as a non-event!
November 14th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
[...] Comments [...]
November 16th, 2006 at 6:18 am
Entrepreneurs See a Web Guided by Common Sense - Is That Really So?!?
As if we didn’t have enough with Web 2.0 and all the hype going on around the subject of social software, here is an article from the NYT introducing the concept of Web 3.0. This is a weblog post in which I share why I am not really looking forward to…
November 17th, 2006 at 7:02 am
[...] For more on the Web 3.0 debate, check out Scoble’s (sarcastic) summary. ← home [...]
November 17th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
[...] This site has been live just over 2 weeks, so we thought we’d take a look at how our visitors are finding us. Just over a quarter of visitors come directly to the site by typing in the URL or clicking on a favorite link in their browser — this is probably mostly us coming to visit or edit the site. Just under 20% of viewers come from Yahoo Profiles — Misty is here, Bill is here. Just over 15% came from Robert Scoble’s blog — because of a comment Bill made to a post. Almost 9% come from our TLCmagic blog, almost 7% from Misty’s MySpace Profile, just over 6% from Flickr where we both have photos posted, just under 6% from Blogger which hosts our TLCmagic blog, just under 6% from Yahoo Search which has this site at number one for “Design Ninjas”, just under 2% from Technorati where we have a profile, just under 1% from Seth Godin’s blog after we linked to him here, followed by the rest of the Long Tail. [...]
November 20th, 2006 at 11:39 am
[...] Robert Scoble wiederum legt seinen Beitrag komplett als Satire an und führt mit Web 2007 gleich den nächsten Hype ein: “So, tonight, we’re announcing Web 2007. It’s just like Web 2006 except it has more widgets. Works on Windows Vista (which will ship in 2007). Apple will make it better (they are shipping a new OS too).” [...]
February 19th, 2007 at 12:26 am
[...] For more on the Web 3.0 debate, check out Scoble’s (sarcastic) summary. [...]