5 ms·

Why the Web 3.0 Matters and you should know about it

9 points by devmount 9y ago

zeristor 9y ago
Wasn’t Web 3.0 supposed to be about using structured data in websites?
- type0 9y ago
  The truth is that Web 3.0 turned out to be oligopoly, it's the same shit as Web 2.0 just with less actors. The future will be televized... If you said to me in the 90s that I would need to recompile my website to javascript in order to keep up with "the cool kids" I would have laughed my ass off, today it's the reality. The WWW ought to stand for World Wild Web.
- ThatHNGuy 9y ago
  I thought it was all about 3D Websites
  - klez 9y ago
    Where did you get that impression? I mean, it's quite a leap.
    - Terretta 9y ago
      Canvas 3D, Mozilla 2006, Opera 2007 Web GL, 2009 - 2013, Apple, Google, Mozilla, Opera, and others Web VR, Mozilla, 2014 https://www.cnet.com/news/firefox-virtual-reality-for-the-web/ https://www.cnet.com/news/firefox-virtual-reality-for-the-we... And web as VR splashes every step of the way. It’s here! https://www.creativebloq.com/features/the-vr-web-is-here https://www.creativebloq.com/features/the-vr-web-is-here
      - klez 9y ago
        I was talking about the impression that this is what will be called "Web 3.0". I know this has been pushed a lot, but nowhere in the articles you posted (or the other I read by myself) this is called "Web 3.0".
- singularity2001 9y ago
  the 'semantic web' yes.
fiala__ 9y ago
1. jot down a bunch of buzzwords 2. come up with a buzzword that summarizes those buzzwords 3. put normal words between the buzzwords 4. take the paragraph PR emailed you earlier and insert it about 85% into the text 5. publish to Medium and post on HN I love the idea of going back to a decentralised Web but I worry about it becoming just a way for the next generation of Silicon Valley kids to make billions. I would like to see more technical posts dealing with the actual workings of decentralised systems, rather than this mindless PR.
- teilo 9y ago
  The fact that they posted this drivel to HN also demonstrates that they do not know their audience.
exikyut 9y ago
TL;DR: "Web 3.0 is all about a new set of apps and services. It will bring about a new way of doing things, and is the future. These apps will be what everyone is using." ... "Join us and discuss this utopian future over at ${centralized_platform}!" "I'm also using ${centralized_platform} and ${centralized_platform}, just like everyone else in the real world, and you can reach me over there too." How do I interpret this? This person's actions call into question whether they even believe in the shovelware they're hawking. If you're going to make a whole post like this, at least have the decency to be that crazy about it.
Hnrobert42 9y ago
Why is almost the entire article in italics? Is that the author’s stylistic choice or am I doing something wrong?
jochung 9y ago
Why not skip ahead to Web 3.11 for Workgroups?
throwaway2016a 9y ago
Every time I see Web 3.0 I cringe. The article starts off with a history lesson that is outright wrong. It's like they didn't know what Web 2.0 actually was so decided rather than research, to just make something up. Then base their web 3.0 definition on a faulty 1.0 and 2.0 definition. You are not Tim O'Reilly or Tim Berners Lee. You can't just make versioning for the web. Web 2.0 was popularized by Tim O'Reilly and the only reason it caught on is because O'Reilly media started putting the name on major conferences. Spending a lot of money and resources on the branding and lobbying to make O'Relly a thought leader in the space not just a blog post. I know, I was there, right in the main auditorium of the Web 2.0 Summit watching the biggest names in tech speak. It had nothing to do with modem speed. It had more to do with Javascript becoming main stream. To vastly oversimplify: Web 1.0 = Static documents and basic server-side business logic Web 2.0 = Dynamic documents with Ajax and interactive page elements* - called RIAA (Rich Internet Applications) or recently SaaS Web 3.0 = Either the Semantic Web (giving meaning to web content), SPA (Single Page Applications), decentralized web, or blockchain. Depending on who you talk to. Really depending on which industry the person you are talking to wants to promote as the next big thing. The point is, there is no definition of web 3.0 and there won't be. No one person has the right to version the Internet. Because the web is not one single thing anymore. And that's OK. I just wish people would stop trying to call it that. * Plus fewr letter "e" before "r", baby blue and/or pink logos, star burst graphics, and mirror images bellow graphics The Semantic Web never really caught on (though you can still go to Meetups at MIT to discuss it every month) but some of the key concepts did carry over, like having elements in your XML (HTML) that convey the meaning of what is inside. Edit: Changed "coined" to "popularized"... O'Reilly as not the first to use the term.
k__ 9y ago
Web 3.0 is a thing for many years now. Shouldn't we talk about 4.0 or 5.0? I mean, with WASM we are at native Web now...

9 points by devmount 9y ago

zeristor 9y ago

Wasn’t Web 3.0 supposed to be about using structured data in websites?

type0 9y ago
The truth is that Web 3.0 turned out to be oligopoly, it's the same shit as Web 2.0 just with less actors. The future will be televized... If you said to me in the 90s that I would need to recompile my website to javascript in order to keep up with "the cool kids" I would have laughed my ass off, today it's the reality. The WWW ought to stand for World Wild Web.
ThatHNGuy 9y ago
I thought it was all about 3D Websites
- klez 9y ago
  Where did you get that impression? I mean, it's quite a leap.
  - Terretta 9y ago
    Canvas 3D, Mozilla 2006, Opera 2007 Web GL, 2009 - 2013, Apple, Google, Mozilla, Opera, and others Web VR, Mozilla, 2014 https://www.cnet.com/news/firefox-virtual-reality-for-the-web/ https://www.cnet.com/news/firefox-virtual-reality-for-the-we... And web as VR splashes every step of the way. It’s here! https://www.creativebloq.com/features/the-vr-web-is-here https://www.creativebloq.com/features/the-vr-web-is-here
    - klez 9y ago
      I was talking about the impression that this is what will be called "Web 3.0". I know this has been pushed a lot, but nowhere in the articles you posted (or the other I read by myself) this is called "Web 3.0".
singularity2001 9y ago
the 'semantic web' yes.

fiala__ 9y ago

1. jot down a bunch of buzzwords 2. come up with a buzzword that summarizes those buzzwords 3. put normal words between the buzzwords 4. take the paragraph PR emailed you earlier and insert it about 85% into the text 5. publish to Medium and post on HN I love the idea of going back to a decentralised Web but I worry about it becoming just a way for the next generation of Silicon Valley kids to make billions. I would like to see more technical posts dealing with the actual workings of decentralised systems, rather than this mindless PR.

teilo 9y ago
The fact that they posted this drivel to HN also demonstrates that they do not know their audience.

exikyut 9y ago

TL;DR: "Web 3.0 is all about a new set of apps and services. It will bring about a new way of doing things, and is the future. These apps will be what everyone is using." ... "Join us and discuss this utopian future over at ${centralized_platform}!" "I'm also using ${centralized_platform} and ${centralized_platform}, just like everyone else in the real world, and you can reach me over there too." How do I interpret this? This person's actions call into question whether they even believe in the shovelware they're hawking. If you're going to make a whole post like this, at least have the decency to be that crazy about it.

Hnrobert42 9y ago

Why is almost the entire article in italics? Is that the author’s stylistic choice or am I doing something wrong?

jochung 9y ago

Why not skip ahead to Web 3.11 for Workgroups?

throwaway2016a 9y ago

Every time I see Web 3.0 I cringe. The article starts off with a history lesson that is outright wrong. It's like they didn't know what Web 2.0 actually was so decided rather than research, to just make something up. Then base their web 3.0 definition on a faulty 1.0 and 2.0 definition. You are not Tim O'Reilly or Tim Berners Lee. You can't just make versioning for the web. Web 2.0 was popularized by Tim O'Reilly and the only reason it caught on is because O'Reilly media started putting the name on major conferences. Spending a lot of money and resources on the branding and lobbying to make O'Relly a thought leader in the space not just a blog post. I know, I was there, right in the main auditorium of the Web 2.0 Summit watching the biggest names in tech speak. It had nothing to do with modem speed. It had more to do with Javascript becoming main stream. To vastly oversimplify: Web 1.0 = Static documents and basic server-side business logic Web 2.0 = Dynamic documents with Ajax and interactive page elements* - called RIAA (Rich Internet Applications) or recently SaaS Web 3.0 = Either the Semantic Web (giving meaning to web content), SPA (Single Page Applications), decentralized web, or blockchain. Depending on who you talk to. Really depending on which industry the person you are talking to wants to promote as the next big thing. The point is, there is no definition of web 3.0 and there won't be. No one person has the right to version the Internet. Because the web is not one single thing anymore. And that's OK. I just wish people would stop trying to call it that. * Plus fewr letter "e" before "r", baby blue and/or pink logos, star burst graphics, and mirror images bellow graphics The Semantic Web never really caught on (though you can still go to Meetups at MIT to discuss it every month) but some of the key concepts did carry over, like having elements in your XML (HTML) that convey the meaning of what is inside. Edit: Changed "coined" to "popularized"... O'Reilly as not the first to use the term.

k__ 9y ago

Web 3.0 is a thing for many years now. Shouldn't we talk about 4.0 or 5.0? I mean, with WASM we are at native Web now...