Why Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg are wrong about naming Web 3.0 "Web 3.0"

Can we just head this trend off at the pass? It seems that Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg, at their “All Things D” conference announced the beginning of the Web 3.0 era.

That’s ridiculous.

And I’m not the only one to think so.

Short aside: It’s interesting that neither Kara nor Walt show up very often on friendfeed, which is the best example of the 2010 Web right now. Kara Swisher has made a total of five comments there. Walt is even worse, doesn’t bring any items in there, and only has six comments. How can you know what the 2010 Web is, if you don’t use it and don’t participate in it?

The Web does NOT have version numbers. Naming what was going on in the last eight years “Web 2.0″ did us all a large disservice (Tim O’Reilly did that, mostly to get people to see that there was something different about the Web that was being built in 2000-2003 than what had come before).

But by naming it a number, I believe it caused a lot of people and businesses to avoid what was going on and “poo poo” it as the rantings of the new MySpace generation (which was just getting hot back then).

See, the Web changes EVERY DAY and a version number just doesn’t do it justice. Think about today, we saw Microsoft announce a major new update to its search engine, named “Bing,” that turns on next week and is already getting TONS of kudos. Seriously, in the rental car shuttle today a guy I met said the demo he saw at Kara and Walt’s conference was “awesome.”

Also today was Google’s Wave, which caught everyone by surprise and which sucked the oxygen out of Microsoft’s search announcements. Check out all the reports that I liked from around the world this morning.

But, back to the theme of this post. There IS something going on here. I covered it a few weeks ago.

The things that are happening are NOT just Twitter and search. Here, let me recount again what is making up the 2010 Web:

1. Real Time. Google caught the Wave of that trend today BIG TIME.
2. Mobile. Google, again, caught that wave big time Wednesday when it handed Android phones to everyone at its IO conference.
3. Decentralized. Does Microsoft or Twitter demonstrate that trend? Not really well.
4. Pre-made blocks. I call this “copy-and-paste” programming. Google nailed it with its Web Elements (I’ll add a few of those next week).
5. Social. Oh, have you noticed how much more social the web is? The next two days I’m hanging out on an aircraft carrier with a few people who do social media for the Navy.
6. Smart. Wolfram Alpha opened a lot of people’s eyes to what is possible in new smart displays of information.
7. Hybrid infrastructure. At the Twitter Conference this week lots of people were talking about how they were using both traditional servers along with cloud-based approaches from Amazon and Rackspace to store, study, and process the sizeable datasets that are coming through Twitter, Facebook, and friendfeed.

So, why doesn’t a version number work for these changes? Because they don’t come at us all at once. A lot of these things have been cooking for years. The Internet makes iteration possible. Tomorrow will be better on the Internet than today. In the old world of software you’d have to wait for the compilers, then you’d need to distribute tons of CDs or disks. That no longer needs to be done.

The idea that we have a version for the Web is just plain ridiculous. It makes the innovations we’re implementing too easily dismissed. How many times have you heard that “Twitter is lame?” I lost count 897 days ago.

Now, is using a year number, like what I’m doing, better? Yes. It gets us out of the version lock. And it makes it clear to businesses that if you are still driving around a 1994 Web site that it’s starting to look as old and crusty as a 1994 car is about now. Executives understand this. It’s a rare executive who drives an old car around. Most like to have the latest expensive car to get to work in.

Same with the Web. Calling it the “2010 Web” puts an urgency into what’s happening. If your business isn’t considering the latest stuff it risks looking lame or, worse, leaving money on the table. Just like driving a 1994 car risks looking lame or, worse, breaking down a lot more often than a newer car.

Is the year metaphor perfect? No, I’m sure there are a few things wrong with it. For one, if you want to host a conference based on the “trend” you’ll have to change your conference name every year. That costs money, which is why conference companies like to have more stable trends that they can exploit for a few years, at least.

Also, there are some clear “eras” in the Web, so I could see wanting to suggest that we’re in the third era of the Web, but I’ve been studying this for the past eight years and calling the second era “Web 2″ actually held us back because mainstream users didn’t think anything was happening in the past few years and Web 2.0 became a useless phrase anyway.

Anyway, can we use year numbers to describe the Web now? It’ll make it easier to evangelize the modern world to businesses. We’re entering the 2010 Web, that’s what I’m exploring. Calling the Web a version number is for people who don’t really understand, or participate in, what’s going on here. Kara and Walt, you gotta do better here.


  1. The broader question if this is a river or a section in a newspaper? Didn't you convince Dave Winer that we need booth? They are newspaper people, so they think “Business Section”. Categories instead of tags. To be perfectly honest all tags are stupid, including 2010 (sorry), yet we need somehting to hold on to…

  2. I think Kara and Walt are right.

    Not about Web 3.0, we are nowhere near, but in dismissing Friendfeed and Twitter as passing fads.

  3. Adorno: OK, you might be right that Twitter and friendfeed are passing fads. But if you are a journalist, or you want to say that definitively, you can only say that if you ACTUALLY USE THE PRODUCTS. Otherwise you HAVE NO CREDIBILITY on the topic. By the way, I can tell you you are absolutely wrong for a whole lot of reasons.

  4. Actually, journalists don't have to use a product or service to have credibility, they just have to interview sources that do. You should try it some time.

  5. journalism 101: that's bull too. Sorry, that crap don't fly anymore. What Walt and Kara are doing in the link I linked to above is NOT journalism: it's telling us what's important. They aren't telling me “Steve Jobs thinks this is important.” They are telling me what THEY think is important. The fact that they haven't even participated in the real time web, which is one of the HUGE themes this year is scary, to tell you the truth.

  6. Great article on what the current evolving Internet is doing and who is getting it and who doesn't ;) .

    But wouldn't web users get frustrated or disorientated if we yet took a new numbering convention to describe our current status. I do agree that using a year number is more accurate then staying in terms of 2.0 or 3.0, but swapping it for a whole new number might be all to confusing for people not around the web that much.

    In my perspective the 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 are just milestone markers – and we didn't reach 3.0 yet – to describe certain era's in which the Internet as we know it can be described/detailed. As we're in the middle of the evolving web, we're not near putting down another milestone marker yet. And thus I agree on you to use sub-versions like 2010 web to at least mark the way it's evolving.

  7. I don't think people are that easily confused. Microsoft has gone back and forth a few times. Funny enough “Windows 7″ could be used both for and against my stance above. I disagree that we're not in a new era. It's very clear to me that we're in a completely different era than existed in 2001 when Web 2.0, as a name started getting popular.

  8. I agree that we're in a different era, I meant that putting down the 3.0 milestone is not just. That's why it's a good thing to have more to hang on to like your 2010 web. Also I don't mind that it'll bring extra costs for the exploiting companies. The web is as fast as it is, thus name switching is as well.

    Do you pose that we should loose the 3.0 naming in general?

  9. Please Robert, as you are a wordpress user, install the wordpress mobile plugin from Alex King. Everybody is talking about mobility (point 2 of your list). But most of websites are not mobile compatible.

    I can unserstand that big website with lots of ads don't want to use a mobile web site, because the ads won't be displayed anymore. But this is not the case for your site and most of bloggers website. I'm pretty sure somebody will find a way to display some sort of ad with this kind of mobile website too.

    I'm still using an “old” N95 to twit on the go and read your blog posts. I can see how much data is transfered from this site and other when I use my mobile phone.

    And to leave this comment I had to come back to your site with my laptop connected to my N95 in tethering mode to leave this comment ;-)

    Maybe your statistics don't show much traffic from mobile phone, but I'm interested to know how this evolved since iphone and 3G data fee came out.

    Thank you in advance for that. I agree on all other points.

  10. I don't think we live in a “dot 'oh” environment on the Web. It's all iterative and is updating very quickly. As the word “social” has been added to everything in the last three years, you're now seeing “real-time” as the buzzword. In 2010, it may still be “real-time”. It may be something else. But this isn't 2.1 or 2.2 or 2.5 or 3.0. 2010Web make sense, but you don't want to fall into the trap of Microsoft and Adobe, rebranding the movement every year. (Windows 95, 98, Office 97, etc.)

  11. I agree that web 2.0 / web 3.0 is less and less relevant and is indeed a distraction – this thing we're experiencing is organic just like mankind – and in the current context we're simply moving along the aging process – we're no longer infants or schoolkids – and I think we're coming through our late teens here. I'm not even sure whether there is any purpose in branding as Web 2009, Web 2010, Web 2011 …… That's simply more evidence that this is organic evolution rather than major step change.

  12. FriendFeed is NOT the only 2010 Web entity. And it shouldn't be used as a benchmark either. Why? Because there are better more successful ones that are used by people outside the Silicon Valley as well.
    I wish you would stop judging people by the number of comments and likes they have on FriendFeed. It's really sad actually.

  13. Who gives a shit, Web 2.0 was just a harmless and slightly humorous name for the new 2 way interaction that started on the web, it was easy for people who are not really in the industry to understand the concept….and now Web 3.0 seems just another harmless name for a new emerging phenomena……its going to be called something.

    I thought IT geeks had a sense of humor?

  14. Great post Robert and I agree that the Web 3.0 phrase isn't the dawn of a new era. It's not like the early adopters are already experimenting with Web 4.0 concepts, we're all on the same path, a journey discovering new tools, applications and services that add value and functionality to the web!

  15. thank you so much for stating this point so perfectly. the 2.0 label has been bothering for me for years. it's been a semantic symbol that's led to a truly damaging degree of misinformation and misunderstanding. seeing “3.0″ beginning to gain traction has been a nauseating experience. drop the propaganda and drink a new coke. good show scoble!

  16. I'am agree with you Robert. Some months ago i write a post with the title “web 3.0 is for mobile porn”. I joked but i think that we have to have look every year what are the new Web trends. But with an approach different from Win 95/98/00.

  17. Markers help us organize time and events. It was Oct 2004 when O'Reilly launched the 2.0 marker with his conference. He's written that it was March of that year when the phrase was first used in planning for the conference. Four years later in March of 2008, Bear Stearns collapsed, marking the new economic period we've entered into, a period when O'Reilly says it's time to focus on “stuff that matters.” The era of 2.0 has passed, we're into something new. It didn't happen overnight, it's been a while coming, but the change in the economy, the new realtime social mobile attributes, all combine to say this is a very different new time. Whether we call it 2010 or 3.0.

  18. The Web does indeed change every day – like life. Neither “Web 3.0″ nor “Web 2010″ works for me. Agree with others that we're still on Web 2.0, and that term worked – and still works (though we're all getting pretty sick of it and now use it pretty judiciously) – because it represents the sea change the Net-using world experienced when the Web went from being head-end mass media hyperlinked on a screen to a highly user-produced, multidirectional, social experience. Would love to get others' thoughts on this, though: Not sure there will be a Web 3.0, another sea change like the one Tim O'Reilly noted.

  19. Actually I see writers, yeah writers not bloggers, like Scoble and Andy Beard as the credible sources that I use to keep me abreast of what goes over my head. They don't bring me news reports, they are the credible sources that bring me further insight and deeper thinking than I can muster.

  20. Excellent analysis, with only one or two fatal flaws. While FriendFeed as you state may be the best demonstration of 2010 Web, it still hasn't become mainstream as Twitter and Facebook already have. Furthermore, your car analogy falls flat, as most people don't buy a new car every year, as you suggest. I'm also sure you understand the depreciation curve, and its impact on many things, besides the latest model car all the executives you cite are driving.

  21. I do have to say that the most usable thing that Google has produced for me lately is the options to now display and filter web results by age. I do not want to Google a term and read a TechCrunch post about Google Friend Connect being released in May 2008 just because they got 55 trackbacks / links. I want to read what Google displays as the authority sites on what I am trying to keep up on that is happening now.

    This makes Googling the same term from time to time useful because I can choose the time frame I want to drill down to. This also makes very insightful new blog posts from authority sites and writers more relevant because now they can be found easily, but otherwise would have been in Blogsearch.

    This is good news for your sites and Google users too.

    Turning data from social sources? Tim Berners-Lee talked about this at TED recently.

    And Google Wave is what is going to take Google Friend Connect and glue all the pieces together. Going to spend the weekend digging into the APIs, the videos and the documentation. This could be the conversation real time medium that Scoble has been talking about and what FriendFeed is striving for. Again, competition is a good thing, brings out the best FROM the best.

  22. The train is moving. Businesses just need to hop on. They can never get on at the front, only somewhere in the middle. By the time most get their 2010 websites built we'll be marketing the 2015 web. Why can't we just go back to calling it The Web and let weblications continually evolve with new functions and features without having to give it a name?

  23. I agree that throwing around the Web 3.0 term is lame.

    That being said, who gives a care about friendfeed? I don't consider friendfeed usage as an indicator of someone being “in the know” or “tech savvy”.

    Seriously Scoble, I don't give a shit about friendfeed.

  24. What hopefully distinguishes intelligence is that we don't have to use the products in order to form a valid (and possibly correct) opinion of them. We should be able to just use our knowledge and experience to construct an understanding of something, outside of having to empirically interact with it. Sure, if we don't have the background, the opinion isn't based on much, but the depth of the opinion doesn't have to be tied to direct experience.

  25. I'm not convinced a year is anything different than a version under a different guise.

    As for what executives think — there are companies just switching this year to Office 2003. Big corporations tends to be very slow to adopt anything until it's settled and debugged and established.

    How many companies with more than 100 people that are NOT tech do you know that are using Office 2007? Executives are not the source of innovation or the impetus behind a zeitgeist of adoption. It's always been consumer driven, not executive driven. Kudos on starting what could be a good controversy in the statusphere.

  26. So I bit the bullet and logged in here via Google Friend Connect only to find out that comments there don't go to the main comment thread- this is bad and big hurdle “Web 2010″ has to overcome somehow.

  27. Tsk tsk. Someone feeling a bit dejected that their phrases aren't being used?
    First it was “real time web”, now “2010 web”. Get over it.

  28. That's all to create a hype, Web, Web 2.0, Web 3.0.. To me its just Web that keeps getting better with time I guess the idea is just to have a feather in one's cap. Coin the term and take the cake away.

    @ImranHussain.. Agreed that there are a countless web services and FriendFeed should not be used to judge people. BUT you should at least try and 'understand' when you read properly and polish up your understanding of the language. Re-read the comment again. Please

  29. Do you remember what someone told Walt at DEMO'07? That he was too old to be judging “Web 2.0″ startups, as he didn't fall into the target age group nor had the usage patterns of the typical user of social apps. Frankly he is not an authority to be talking about “Web 3.0″, whatever that may be (can we stop calling things Web x.0 forever please??)

  30. Sorry for the topic fork:

    I don't think Twitter/FF are fads. However, I do think how they are used will change – a lot – over time. Robin Wauters just wrote a really good post about some issues with Twitter (http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/29/so-much-fo…), but to say it's a passing fad, imo, is wrong.

    So, sure, it might be used now like the Dot-Bomb era chain letter for a lot of people…but there are still tons of groups quietly using it amongst themselves for really cool things. I see this EVERY DAY with the people using my site.

  31. Web 3.0 sounds confusing, am ok with Web 2.1 though,
    i don't know about 2010 web, sounds too much like a Microsoft thing, Office 2007, Visual Studio 2007
    if i have to choose between 2010 web and Web 3.0, i would choose Web 3.0 because it sounds better

  32. Can you please stop talking (evangelisting) about FriendFeed?

    Some people like it; most people don't. It is not an indicator of being 'switched-on'.

  33. have you ever tried to explain Twitter to someone? what about Facebook? do you think they understand it as well as you do being a user? No way. Doesn't matter how thorough you explain it or how great your examples and metaphors are, there's no way they will be able to speak about it adequately without getting their hands into it to see for themselves.

  34. Web 2.0 was just a name given because it was like starting over after the dot com bust. I think FriendFeed is unquestionably the most killer app on the internet right now, next to Google search. Facebook is great also in the same sense that Amazon is, that their core business models are old, but they constantly keep innovating, iterating with the changing landscape, mixing it up, not just keeping up, but leading the way. I've got one word for Twitter: Hubris. And that's all I'll say.
    In the old days you could just slap down your business model, build your factory, and let it roll for 30 years. Look at the NY times. Perfect example. They just slap a replica of their old paper on the net and think they are forward thinking. Has their site even changed one bit in the last ten years? And they wonder why their business is dying?
    Look at Hulu. They are just slapping TV onto the internet. Is that really interesting to anybody?
    These days you've got to be constantly innovating as a company or die. Which means you have to be “into” it and not just there to make money. You can't just slap your old company on the internet. You have to create a new internet centric company.
    The other key problem is the Telco industry. You have monopolies that give poor service, don't give a shit and charge you out the ass. It's because the industry is so heavily federally regulated. If you had de regulation there, you'd have a multi gigabit two way connection, and a totally de centralized World that would unleash the greatest creative Golden Age mankind has ever seen, and the greatest creation of Wealth and Abundance FOR ALL the World has ever seen. And then as Blake said, everything will be seen for what it is, “infinite.”
    This isn't about Web 3.0, its about World 3.0 or World “Cubed” as is the Batelle/O'Reilly en vogue term currently.
    This is an arms race to defeat the Gods, or rather, to unleash the God in us all. Yes, this will be a blog post. I'm a great writer (Uh Oh, Ego just collapsed my infinite wave function)

  35. Just like in schools, where what counts is based on knowing things by memorizing them. Good luck. Using either knowledge or experience implies, in my humble opinion, that you go out and make your hand dirty with the “thing” you want to lean about.

  36. Scoble, I agree…hard to take merit in their point if they do not actively participate, even for a limited time as part of an experiment-or at least had someone experiment for them and bring them information.

    I guess it is the same as Ryan Seacrest telling us the Yankees are done for the year-both Ryan Seacrest and the Yankees are a big part of popular culture/popular entertainment (sports are entertainment, teams like Yankees you could argue have more passive fans than other teams…), but people would automatically tell him to go wait on 42nd Street for the ball to drop; he lacks the sports credibilty…..

  37. This coming from you to polish my understanding of the language? try using a grammar and spell check on your 'splog' before pointing out mistakes in others. Maybe, write another paragraph about it while feeding on others news and call it 'blogging' ? ;)

  38. [...] Why Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg are wrong about naming Web 3.0 “Web 3.0″ [feedly] — 4:41am via Google [...]

  39. “It makes the innovations we’re implementing too easily dismissed.”

    “We”? Can you point me to even one thing YOU have built, developed, or innovated? Even one line of code for a shipping product? The topic is interesting, but please…don't include yourself with the innovators. You are a user and an observer.

  40. So if you go see a movie and tell a friend you thought is was lousy, should your opinion be dismissed because you are neither an actor, director, or producer? you would clearly lack the movie industry credibility

    If you eat a a restaurant and tell a friend you thought the food sucked, should your opinion be dismissed because you are neither a restaurant owner, cook or chef? You would clearly lack culinary credibility.

    Opinions are nether right or wrong. They are just opinions. Feel free to disagree, but don't use the illogical argument of appeal to authority

  41. No, no, NO.


    Kara (and Walt even more so) are known for being ahead of the curve. A good review from Walt can put your product over the top.

    And few reporters covering tech industry and policy are as serious as Kara. I wish I had more like her alongside me in the Capitol. Her visits to DC always produce interesting insights on the things I see every day.

    BUT — as much as I respect Kara and Walt (and they know this), I think it's disingenuous to dismiss technology you don't even use. I use Twitter every day. I've used it to work on stories. I' have a friend who's the lead Congressional writer for a major wire service — he uses Twitter and has broken MAJOR news by watching.

    Kara and Walt are failing by looking only at the tech vs other tech POV. In the “big picture,” journalists need to adapt to what's out there to break news. If they don't, they die.

    (disclaimer: I'm an actual journalist)

  42. Saturday, May 30, 2009 11:03 AM…

    Scoble: Why the “D” people are wrong about Web 3.0. “The idea that we have a version for the Web is just plain ridiculous. It makes the innovations we’re implementing too easily dismissed. How many times have you heard that “Twitter is lame?…

  43. having unleashed a few good and bad TLAs when at Gartner, the best ones described a emerging product category in simple terms that an average business person understood without needing a user manual.

    Web 3.0 like Enterprise 2.0 is a pompous term that will sell a few conference seats

    But it fails the basic “what do it do” test…

  44. I totally agree with the no version numbers, although for non tech (read simple business people) it's sometimes easier to get a point across and go for the generalisation and explain it as a third phase we're in.

    And on the side… I love my Alfa GTV from '97. Yes it's not environmentally the best car, it doesn't have the latest gizmo's but there sometimes has to be something said for 'nostalgia' no ?

  45. Thanks for clarifying Robert. I agree Web 3 lost all meaning quickly. The most I could come up with was Semantic got intellectually snobbish and the defining issue became getting wireless into 3rd world areas so goat herders could find markets. Somewhere in the hysteria FB got leapfrogged by Google Wave. Go figger. I like 2010 better.

  46. I am really excited about Google wave I think this will change the internet as we know it. Nice website by the way,@scobleizer @iamchrislang recommended it to me.

  47. “How can you know what the 2010 Web is, if you don’t use it and don’t participate in it?” Ah i'm beginning to understand. The 2010 web is the web that you are using …. Come on, there are tons of services and i use a lot of them and don't like Friendfeed. So if you don't like what you like you don't get it? Strange.

  48. Robert, I agree that the best information comes first hand.

    You can't credibly dismiss something unless you have experienced it personally.

    Whether FF or Twitter or passing fads doesn't matter here – it's the evidence used in arguments that's under review.

  49. “Web 3.0″, “2010 Web”, … boring. Lets really put on our marketing hats…

    How about “WeB1″ with a logo of cartoon people holding hands around a globe?

    Just kidding–who cares? “Web 2.0″ has always been a fuzzy term… ditto “semantic web”. The next terms will be fuzzy too. The web and various technologies and applications are moving so fast by the time we have consensus on a name (if we were to have consensus, that is) we'll be arguing about whether the latest new thing is part of that name or is justification for the next name.

    I'm cool with “Web 3.0″ or “2010 Web” — the mean the same thing, fuzzily speaking.

  50. You are so right. I am trying to use Twitter, etc. to get my new project off the ground. I am in the field of “Cougar Dating” which is rather new, but everyone seems interested. I have no knowledge of how to use twitter–know it is important, but totally lost in the language about “clouds” etc. Just because YOU (those who know and use twitter) know everything about twitter and Facebook–some of us are still in the dark–total darkness here.

  51. It is quit good to gave terms for the next Web generation era, but I think before to consider the new ones, it should be reviewed a million times or make some research if that is necessary to do before reveling the topic concern.

    But, of course that's my opinion only.. =)

  52. …and shame on you all for not even mentioning it earlier in comments or the article. That is all.

  53. Why call it 2010 Web either? Waddueff. Leave the web alone plz. it's for me geeks and not hungry marketers, people who wanna make money just for naming the web (at least Tim did contribute a lot when he allegedly “coined” Web 2 dot oh)

  54. Robert,

    I hardly ever comment but after watching Jay Berkowitz's presentation on Web 2010 on Monday you and he have similar approaches and he has fleshed things out a bit more. You two should write a book – seriously.

    I was greatly offended by Kara's “rebuttal” article. She was demeaning calling you names and totally condescending with her opinions. You clearly touched a nerve – so don't stop.

    The real core difference is that you are commentator with an opinion. She and Walt are or profess to be journalists. You have never tried to say you are anything different. They should evaluate their own journalistic integrity before they start professing new eras in computing and just report on them like they are supposed to do.

  55. When using the Web 3.0 metaphor, there's a larger sense of context that they are drawing from that isn't mentioned in your post.

    The old joke — for people like Swisher and Mossberg, and many others as well — was that at Microsoft, quality was version 3.0. For whatever reason, Microsoft products tended to go from obscurity to success, whether you're talking Windows, Word, Excel, or Internet Explorer. WordPerfect was kicking MSFT's ass to the tune of millions of dollars every time founder Alan Ashton breathed in — that is, until MSFT launched Word 3.0. Lotus was doing the same to MSFT and bragging about it, until Excel 3.0 came around. And so on. (By the way, I was never a MSFT employee, but worked with them on several initiatives ranging from tv to real-time energy pricing.)

    There's an old mantra, “build, fortify, leverage” that was used to describe the process of owning a marketplace. This had nothing to do with versioning but it does convey a sense of process and continuity that also describes the maturation of the web.

    I don't want to discount your thoughts about 2010 Web. You obviously have put a lot of thought into this.

  56. Hmmm, this is a tricky one. Personally I see all the little incremental changes going on in the web – tighter pre-integration, smoother API's, new behavioural tools, etc. So I agree that any kind of versioning is rediculous. It's like trying to version the state of the economy. Where is the US and UK today? Are they in version 5 or 6..? Or have they just had to roll-back a version due to the credit crises..? There are so many little things taking place that make up the bigger trends. We can “era” it, but then let's stay away from numbers all-together. It only creates confusion…

  57. All these social media distractions, perfect for the narcissistic ADD set, have really improved your blog — by improved I mean lack of output, I only need to check in once a month.

  58. Kara/Walt

    I am on friendfeed, twitter,youtube,flickr,facebook,linkein,google,blah blah blah
    I do marketing for friendfeed so how can you announce web 3.0
    I was suppose to announce that thing or only I am eligible to do that..I I I I I I I I I I only IIIIII

    not fair.

  59. “It’s a rare executive who drives an old car around. Most like to have the latest expensive car to get to work in.”

    Unfortunately for that metaphor, most people aren't executives. They also have more common sense than that, and use what works for them. No matter what terminology you use, the executive types will always be on the trailing edge of technology, because they can't understand it until it's gone mainstream and can be canned into a cute phrase. I've spent the past 10 years of my life as a Unix systems admin, and am speaking firsthand. This applies even more strongly to the U.S. population at large, most of which are not only computer illiterate, but just plain stupid.

  60. Absolutely. I said the same thing in my blog post that we are in an awkward time because Web 2.0 has jumped the shark and there's nothing that deserves to be called Web 3.0 http://soacenter.com

    In fact, I would be perfectly happy if there were no more version numbers for anything except maybe software.


  61. The fact that they haven't even participated in the real time web, which is one of the HUGE themes this year is scary, to tell you the truth.

    Says the guy who doesn't know how to use an FTP client or participate in web development whatsoever, but wants everyone to believe he's some kind of Internet expert.

  62. Scoble's obviously just intimidated by ATD and the fact that their term will likely catch on before his own 2010 Web nonsense. They're both bullshit and unnecessary.

    Just call it the Web, and I promise people will still know what you're referring to.

  63. I agree it is ridiculous, although I'm not sure how naming it 2010 Web is better. I'm working on a book and have decided to go with the Web 3.0 and Web 4.0 terminology.

    Seems like you've stopped blogging, or maybe just enjoying a vacation :- ) ?

  64. As a matter of logistics, the title of your post is fallacious for attempting to refute a quality that is by definition given as the essence. That is to say, you hurt your argument by taking for granted that the name of the movement is web 3.0, before suggesting that others are wrong to call web 3.0, web 3.0. Logicians, future anthropologists and the greater many who do not participate but become psychologically effected will likely not be pleased.

  65. Reading this article made me realized that more people are engaging in to the world of the internet such as blogging, designing web site, creating different wordpress plugins, writing articles, buying things, doing marketing business and stuff. And it just keeps on increasing. Just imagine the outcome by the year 2010 + + + +

  66. [...] something is truly catching on (or blazing the house down!) If you browse Robert’s blog about The Web 2010, he has some great bullet points that have been debated here locally with the Social Media Club [...]

  67. Twitter a “passing fad”?? No, it's here to stay. It will undergo incremental changes in the future, and maybe one day will bear little with what we see now, but it will stay.

  68. I agree with this article, but I'd really like to know what to call what the web is becoming. I need a label for when I'm describing it to people in training and seminars. Someone, ANYONE please tell me what's coming and what version ;-) we're on now!!!

  69. I'm not a fan of either proposal. To put this into perspective what does Wine 2010 mean and what does Wine 1.0 mean? What does Car 2010 and Car 2.0 mean? Pretty much the same thing at the end of the day – nothing.

    The web does a lot of things and means a lot of different things to people. Both proposals need additional nodes of classification to mean anything to anyone. Era is much better, but this by definition will not allow you to plan for the future – how about web generations?

  70. Alot of those people miss the whole point. I was doing some chat recently and realized that the community was deeper than most of the hype sites. That is just my opinion. There is a major self fulfilling profecy for the top users to dub their community part of some kind of movement when in reality the web is nothing more than a colorful phone line.

  71. <h2 align=”center”>Don't Do For Ugg Boots UK</h2>

    –>If you own a pair of Ugg boots, ugg classic short, be sure to take proper care of them and clean them regularly. With the proper care and cleaning, Uggs can last several years or even a lifetime.

    You love sheepskin footwear and ugg classic because they are comfortable and fashionable. How to keep them looking great? The following are a few tips to help you to know what you don't do for your natural beauty and functionality uggs.

    –>Tip one, don't store your cardy boots ugg in a light place. Because they can bleach in extreme sunlight.

    –>Tip two, ugg boots should not be worn in extremely moist or muddy conditions as moisture can cause problems.

    –>Tip three, don't clean the exterior of? your uggs knightsbridge with a hard brush or cloth at first time dirty.

    –>Tip four, trying not to saturate the sheepskin footwear with water, especially warm or hot water. And don't clean them in a washing machine or dryer, this will cause problems with shrinkage and can adversely change the sheepskin.

    –>Tip five, if need, except specially detergent for sheepskin product, just like classic ugg mini, don't use any wool detergent. Also don't use high concentration cleaning solution.

    –>Some suggestions for you to protect your natural beauty and functionality uggs long periods of time. And also hoping to help you solving your hesitation, spending little time to know more information about ugg boots.

    –>All rights reserved, reprint, please specify source comes from http://www.goodugg.co.ukbailey button,ugg knightsbridge boots,cardy boots,ugg tall classic