3 ms·
There was a lot of web 2.0 hype around the late 90s / early aughts. Lots of companies that tried to cash in on a trend without a solid business model. That said
by mcdonje 5y ago
There was a lot of web 2.0 hype around the late 90s / early aughts. Lots of companies that tried to cash in on a trend without a solid business model. That said, the situation was appreciably different to now.
Web 2.0, as I understand it, was about increasing interactivity so websites aren't all static, which has the possibility of being beneficial to end users. Web 3.0, as I understand it, is crypto-nonsense.
- post_below 5y agoI agree, and also it's easy to forget how silly "Web 2.0" was Not the technology itself, that was great, and was already named. When Web 2.0 arrived as a buzzword the web was already an interactive, dynamic platform with databases, server and client side scripting, user generated content and social networking. All of the technologies involved were in fairly widespread use. For a minute the term Web 2.0 might have been a way to recognize how cool the natural evolution of the web was, but it was quickly co-opted for use as cutting edge sounding investor bait. Same general principle as Web 3.0, but with useful technology. Side note: The Web 2.0 hype was mostly a 2000's thing.
- babyshake 5y agoA lot of Web 2 was about APIs and widgets. Widgets for the most part haven't taken off as some predicted although APIs are very widely used. However, the very open vision of Web2 never fully materialized.
- Agamus 5y agoWeb 3 sounds to me like people who came to the web in the Facebook era, and wish they could have what we had in the good old days. Who can blame them? The problem is that the solution to centralization is to stop centralizing, which the new approach doesn't seem to do. Perhaps there is a way to have our cake and eat it too?