4 ms·
This is not a commentary on the article itself - I don't have an opinion on it. Most people who have experienced the pre-2000s web can tell what Web 2.0 was. I
by jeswin 4y ago
This is not a commentary on the article itself - I don't have an opinion on it.
Most people who have experienced the pre-2000s web can tell what Web 2.0 was. It was a cultural shift in how apps were designed and used, and while the term was vague you could actually tell the difference as a user (eg: encyclopedias v/s wikis). At that point people were similarly critical of the term Web 2.0, and they weren't entirely wrong. The underlying tech wasn't all that different - but the product certainly was.
Web 3.0 as an idea is even bigger than what Web 2.0 was. It is fundamentally different in every way; the tech, the money, the trust, the product. Web 3.0 might fail, but only because it might be a radical idea ahead of its time; not because the term is meaningless.
- andai 4y agoWeb 3.0 (Semantic Web) already failed a decade ago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_3.0 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_3.0 So it annoys me that this new, unrelated thing has stolen its name. Though you it could certainly be argued that due to failing it didn't deserve a major version number.
- jeswin 4y agoFair point. I'm referring to whatever is implied by Web 3.0 today, discounting the misappropriation of the item.
- denton-scratch 4y agoWeb 3.0 is not the same as web3.
- andai 4y agoYes.
- varjag 4y agoThe technical foundation of Web 2.0 was simple: interactivity afforded by XMLHttpRequest. I have to see one yet to formulate what the hell Web 3.0 is under the hood, some definition a la "web but on blockchain" doesn't have enough meat on the bones.
- RamblingCTO 4y agoJust wanted to say that. Web 1.0 was plain HTML. Web 2.0 brought interactiveness via AJAX. It's quite simple actually.
- jeswin 4y agoAJAX was certainly a part of it, but it was also more than that. For example, wiki vs encyclopedias - early wikis made very limited use of AJAX, if at all.