Comments on: After Web 2.0: WOW (Wide Open Web) – enough of version numbers for the web!!

By: Craig Roth

Craig Roth — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:21:54 +0000

Even without the version numbers, this is still staging of the web which makes progress seem more staggered than continuous. As I said in my posting on What I Don’t Like About the “Web 2.0” Label (I'll put the URL at the bottom since it's annoyingly long) there is a lot of rapid fire innovation going on right now and drawing a circle around the innovations that fit the new trend has a harmful affect on those outside it in terms of user attention and funding. https://knowledgeforward.wordpress.com/2007/04/03/what-i-don%e2%80%99t-like-about-the-%e2%80%9cweb-20%e2%80%9d-label/

By: Ruudjah

Ruudjah — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:40:34 +0000

Since the term “Web 2.0” already is in use, and _does_ give explanatory power, I think your point is flawed. “Web 2.0” states that it is about the web, and it is the next version, or better, a successor of it. The versioning term gains more and more power in society, where music albums, news anchors, non-ICT magazines, papers etc use this “2.0” term for a variety of products. In that sense, the versioning term has gained social basis. Using the updated “2.5” or “3.0” term then gives the following explanatory value:
-Its about the web
-Its a new iteration, a successor
The versioning term is precisely what it needs to be: an abstract reference to an update, actually specifying the new iteration.
“Wide Open Web” does not have meaning. You argue that a core characteristic is “opennes” of the web 2.0. Why suddenly introduce that term, while its predecessors where also “open”? Furtermore, it does not specify anything specific about the next iteration. It can be used for web 1.0 and 2.0 also. Web 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 are more specific in that sense, as it illustrates a new thing by a number.
Also, you do not provide solid ground for the reason of “WOW” being a good term.

By: Ross Dawson

Ross Dawson — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:01:15 +0000

Hi Charles, thanks for clarifying – fair enough. I guess that’s the nature of conversation – picking up on little things and taking them in another direction altogether! I do think that the shift from smaller to larger players being central to the space is a somewhat different issue to having a common term for what the space is.
Elias, OK you don’t like Web 2.0 as a term. So what do you suggest that will help us to communicate about what’s happening out there? :-)

By: Elias Bizannes

Elias Bizannes — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:53:46 +0000

Ironic the description about web3.0, as that’s what I say about web2.0. Heck – I still don’t even know what web2.0 is!

By: charles cooper

charles cooper — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:31:50 +0000

hello ross,
i think you’re taking a point on the accompanying chart and blowing it out of proportion. actually, the post based on my reporting out of the conference tried to spotlight the increasing influence of enterprise-level companies in what’s now commonly referred to as the web 2.0 domain.
cheers,
coop