chaseman Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 We know web 2.0 was all about social media and also many other things like new clean looking design trends. Now, next is web 3.0 and we already know technology is going to concentrate on translation, the semantics and making the internet more global and not localized and separated in geographical areas. So I'm wondering how the trends would look like in web 3.0 ? What type of online businesses can we expect? How do you think are people going to generate new income streams with new creative ideas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 I think even though efforts are being made to "concentrate on translation, the semantics and making the internet more global and not localized and separated in geographical areas," I'm gonna have to disagree with this being called "Web 3.0". IMO this is more of an "under the hood" thing that will just make this "Web 2.0" thing (and future "things") better. These things you mentioned are underlying technologies, the things that will make "Web X.0" work (better). Look at how we even program. Object Oriented Programming. What is the central theme of OOP? Take something, find a pattern, abstract it away. IMO this is what we are doing now with making technologies talk to each other better. Abstracting away the technology from the humans so that it can work without human differences. Make the technology global to make the end product local. IMO people aren't going to officially start calling something "Web 3.0" until someone thinks of something that is more visible and tangible. It's like with clothes. There have been innovations in the materials and machines and processes used to create the clothing to make better quality, cheaper stuff more efficiently. While we do praise these things, we (usually) give it little to no consideration when putting a label on fashion styles. It is part of it yes, but it's not the part we really look at when defining on a common level what it is. New clothing styles are created. And there's some overarching theme going on from year to year, decade to decade, generation to generation. Dress lengths have gotten shorter. More buttons, less buttons. Sleeves and no sleeves. Colors and "themes". And the list of form and function on a visual level goes on and on. And snapshots of these decades and even eras are what we would recognize as the "Web X.0" of the clothing industry. Currently the web predominantly focuses on being in front of a full desktop monitor with a full keyboard and a mouse. Over the years we have seen this focus shift to being more mobile-friendly. I think based on this trend, we will eventually see a web that puts most of its focus on being communicated and presented from phones and other (small) mobile devices. I think this is because the vast majority of the population is not really interested in living their lives in a chair in front of a computer. I think people want the internet to be a tool put in the palm of their hand that they can use to enhance their real-life experience, not replace it. People basically want a magic wand to wave and make shit happen. So we see mobile phone technology being developed to act more like a mobile computer that can be used as a phone. IMO we can't even rightfully call a mobile phone a "phone" anymore, because it does so much more than just let you talk to people. We have a million apps floating around that do a million things. Most are somewhat entertaining at best, useless at worst. But then there are a lot that are useful, that truly fit into our notion of having a magic wand. For instance, utilizing GPS and internet technologies to show me on my phone a map of where I am and where other things are. "Where are the 5 closest gas stations to me and how much is their current price of gas?" "I need new shoes, show me the 5 closest places that sell shoes and what sales they have going on." "What movies are playing and when?" You can sit in front of a computer and find these things out. You can go to individual websites or even websites that will aggregate and present that data for you. But that requires sitting in front of your computer, living in front of your computer. Phones can already do these things now, so I can drive around and see I need gas and find out where's the best place to go while I am out living. I can go out shopping and do research in the field for where to go for the best deals. I can hook up with a chica and decide to take her out to the movies or whether to even bring it up without having to commit to actually going to the movie theater. IMO this is what the next big "thing" with the web will be about - focusing on what we can do to enhance our real-life experiences instead of creating virtual ones. So the question is, what more will our electric magic wands do in the future, that we can rightfully declare it the "Web 3.0" experience? All of these things can and will use technology that is ambiguous on the global level, but the use for it will be local - where you are standing right now and what's around you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cssfreakie Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 I always wondered who decided to call something web 2.0 or 3.0 I just place a banner up my site web 12.0 ready Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 All of this is tongue-in-cheek though. Zombie apocalypse will render all of this moot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cssfreakie Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 All of this is tongue-in-cheek though. Zombie apocalypse will render all of this moot. than we better prepare http://ww2.zombieinitiative.org/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaseman Posted March 9, 2011 Author Share Posted March 9, 2011 To crayon, good elaborative post, though, I think only because it's under the hood does not mean we won't see it. Imagine Facebook, which is a tool to socialize, yet the user interface is available in many different languages, and I think that is where the trend is going as well. One thing is not excluding the other. I agree that being mobile is going to continue to be a trend, but it's not going to be the only trend. Why should we have Facebook? And then a German knock off, and an Italian knock off, and a Russian knock off etc. when we simply can use Facebook in our desired language? At the end of the day it's about socializing with your friends in your language. The same goes for many other examples. The tech world is trying to create technology which is supposed to translate articles like blog posts in your own language, that way people around the world could read any article in any language. I myself as a multi-lingual person think that the most quality information on the internet is available in English in this sense I think that people in other countries would not be so separated from the vast of English information on the internet. At the same time I'm not quite sure if the technology is going to reach the goal of translating online articles without major semantic mistakes, as of now I'm not a huge believer in that, though I'll see what the engineers have to offer. As far as online businesses go, I think creating apps, plugins, widgets, or templates (like Wordpress templates) is going to continue to be a nice income stream for many people on the internet. Especially the apps since you mentioned the mobile trend, perhaps we'll start seeing multi-lingual apps? You'd only have to switch up the menus and short descriptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 though, I think only because it's under the hood does not mean we won't see it. Imagine Facebook, which is a tool to socialize, yet the user interface is available in many different languages, and I think that is where the trend is going as well. One thing is not excluding the other. If a year from now FB seamlessly works in all languages, what does that really mean? All it means is that more people will have access to the same Web 2.0 experience. Absolutely nothing changes for myself or anybody else that is currently able to use FB. You aren't talking about coming up with a new tool or a new way of experiencing the web. All you are talking about is making a tool work for more people. This isn't a new Web 3.0 experience, it's just a more efficient Web 2.0 experience broadened to cater to more people. Why should we have Facebook? And then a German knock off, and an Italian knock off, and a Russian knock off etc. when we simply can use Facebook in our desired language? At the end of the day it's about socializing with your friends in your language. The same goes for many other examples. The tech world is trying to create technology which is supposed to translate articles like blog posts in your own language, that way people around the world could read any article in any language. I myself as a multi-lingual person think that the most quality information on the internet is available in English in this sense I think that people in other countries would not be so separated from the vast of English information on the internet. And I more or less agree with this (the "less" part really comes into play when I disagree with you (perhaps unintentionally) sanctioning monopolies, but that's a different topic altogether), however bringing everybody closer together does not really equate to a new experience. It just means more people showing up to the party. But it's still the same party. Now, if the party did not previously have alcohol and all these new people brought some booze, well that's probably going to result in a new "Web 3.0" experience. You are right, more often than not the underlying technology goes hand-in-hand with what we would ultimately call a "Web X.0" experience. But the act of people showing up and even bringing some new tools into the mix in and of itself does not equate to said experience. Someone in the existing party could have easily thought to bring alcohol, sort of thing. We as humans like to categorize things. In order to do this, we must reduce and abstract into shorter terms and labels so that we can see a bigger picture. Like with a puzzle. Each piece is needed to complete the picture. But when you finish it and are looking at the picture, you are no longer thinking about it from an individual-piece perspective. This doesn't mean pieces of a puzzle disappear, it just means that you are now looking at it in broader terms and not thinking about those individual pieces any more. A program being able to work in any language is a feature, an individual piece. It is something we will eventually come to expect from all programs everywhere, and will not in any way actually define a given program. We actually to a degree already expect this of programs, especially on the web...we just currently don't do a very good job at it. And on that note... At the same time I'm not quite sure if the technology is going to reach the goal of translating online articles without major semantic mistakes, as of now I'm not a huge believer in that, though I'll see what the engineers have to offer. Yes, this has been a big stumbling block for people for a long time now. All languages have very specific rules and exceptions and limits to vocabulary (notwithstanding new words being made as technology and ideas etc.. progress). Point is, at its core, any language is the same as a computer language, and with the right logic and lookup tables, it can be very easily translated, even the intent, as long as the language itself is used properly. So the problem is not so much being able to translate from one language to another in it's "proper" form. The problem is that most (if not all) people themselves fail to properly use a given language 100% of the time. I think a good next step for trying to create a digital Rosetta stone is to work on a program that will try to correct and guide people into writing something properly to begin with. Basically a better spelling/grammar checker/suggester for languages. Something that will look at a given string and spit out errors to the user and force them to fix their spelling/grammar errors and try to reform it more properly in their own language and have the user work with that to eventually write something properly and then run it through a translator. As far as online businesses go, I think creating apps, plugins, widgets, or templates (like Wordpress templates) is going to continue to be a nice income stream for many people on the internet. Especially the apps since you mentioned the mobile trend, perhaps we'll start seeing multi-lingual apps? You'd only have to switch up the menus and short descriptions. I am not suggesting that industries/companies that expect you to be in front of a full monitor and keyboard and mouse are going to outright die out. I am just suggesting that a desktop medium will no longer be the major focus. Try to visualize never ever going on the internet ever again unless its from a mobile phone. Now visualize if everybody did the same thing. Who really stands to lose the most out of this? Okay sure, there are going to have to be a lot of changes from a lot of people - changes that are already taking place. Wordpress will focus on making a mobile version of itself. Templates will be mobile based instead of big-screen desktop based. Apps, plugins, widgets, etc... will all continue to be made, just focused on mobile devices rather than desktop devices. IOW I don't think anybody who makes their money off the internet is really gonna lose their job over it, as long as they are willing to shift their focus a bit. --- And of course, all of this that we've been talking about is just speculation based on one trend. Who knows what tomorrow will bring? Maybe next year someone will create a chip to implant into people that will remove the need for a wallet-full of id cards and cash cards etc... and will let you close your eyes and access some 3d internet or hallucinate driving directions (I mean come on, how cool would it be to see big arrows magically appear on the road where you are supposed to turn, little HUD display in your eyeball showing stats for various things around you, etc...) or just think about someone and chip calls someone else and all you have to do is talk or even just think about talking and it sends it to someone else's brain and they "hear" you talking. Internet in your head sort of thing. Science fiction of today is science reality of tomorrow. The more I sit here and think about the future, as long as I base my thoughts around three assumptions: a) There is no such thing as impossible, we just haven't figured out how to do it yet b) We are not destroyed (zombies, AI, war, meteor, rapture, etc...) It is inevitable that the internet will completely cease to exist in its current form. And if I were to try and give an ETA based on my amazing powers of observation* about rate of discovery/innovation vs. rate of what I like to call "all the b.s. involved in withholding said discoveries/innovations from the public in order to maximize profits", I think it's highly possible the internet as we know it will cease to exist within the current generation's lifetime. *No I have not steadfastly gathered data and no I will not do so or present data. Feel free to disregard anything I see because of this, but I must warn you, my ability to detect patterns and trends really is amazing. For instance, I predict a 94.3% probability that you will drink something within the next 24 hours. BE AMAZED. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaseman Posted March 10, 2011 Author Share Posted March 10, 2011 If a year from now FB seamlessly works in all languages, what does that really mean? All it means is that more people will have access to the same Web 2.0 experience. Absolutely nothing changes for myself or anybody else that is currently able to use FB. You aren't talking about coming up with a new tool or a new way of experiencing the web. All you are talking about is making a tool work for more people. This isn't a new Web 3.0 experience, it's just a more efficient Web 2.0 experience broadened to cater to more people. I already answered this with this: Why should we have Facebook? And then a German knock off, and an Italian knock off, and a Russian knock off etc. when we simply can use Facebook in our desired language? You're not thinking in global terms, that may be because you're used to your English language and don't see the web of other languages. You're saying "nothing changes for myself" but it's not all about you, it's also about all the people around the world who don't speak English, all the teenagers around the world who only speak a few words English, it's about them as well. Thinking in global terms, if we don't have so many knock offs as we have now, and believe me there way more than most people would think, than the web 2.0 is exactly not as we are used to it (globally, for all people around the world, not just the USA). In Germany there's a Facebook knock off called Studi VZ it was even in the media several times, but they're not really innovative and not creative and their website is very rudimentary, since ever Facebook started making their tool available in German, Studi VZ is losing users to Facebook. That results in the web 2.0 not being as it was, it results in web 2.0 being more global. I also think you have way to high expectations on web 3.0, the internet does not change abruptly, it's a steadily progress. What you're saying is like saying "why would social media be considered as web 2.0? It just means people on the internet are connected better to each other that's not a significant change." or "if we have smaller social groups on a party or everybody partying together, no matter what race or from where they come from, what difference does that make?" Well over the time it makes a quite huge difference. And people may find out new ways to create something innovative of that direction change. At first the social media sites where there, and then the social media buttons came (sites like Digg etc). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 You're not thinking in global terms, that may be because you're used to your English language and don't see the web of other languages. You're saying "nothing changes for myself" but it's not all about you, it's also about all the people around the world who don't speak English, all the teenagers around the world who only speak a few words English, it's about them as well. But I am thinking in global terms....If you have a website and 100 people are using it and then suddenly 1000 people are using it, yes, that is significant. However, the website itself is still the same site, offering the same things, just to more people. I do not disagree that throwing more people into the mix gives more potential to spark change. But to say that throwing more people into the mix is the change that pushes us from Web 2.0 to Web 3.0 is not accurate, it does not justify relabeling of the site or experience. Thinking in global terms, if we don't have so many knock offs as we have now, and believe me there way more than most people would think, than the web 2.0 is exactly not as we are used to it (globally, for all people around the world, not just the USA). In Germany there's a Facebook knock off called Studi VZ it was even in the media several times, but they're not really innovative and not creative and their website is very rudimentary, since ever Facebook started making their tool available in German, Studi VZ is losing users to Facebook. That results in the web 2.0 not being as it was, it results in web 2.0 being more global. But that's exactly it... you are going from web 2.0 to web 2.0 being used more globally - being used by more people. You are not doing something that justifies renaming web 2.0 to web 3.0. I also think you have way to high expectations on web 3.0, the internet does not change abruptly, it's a steadily progress. What you're saying is like saying "why would social media be considered as web 2.0? It just means people on the internet are connected better to each other that's not a significant change." or "if we have smaller social groups on a party or everybody partying together, no matter what race or from where they come from, what difference does that make?" Well over the time it makes a quite huge difference. And people may find out new ways to create something innovative of that direction change. At first the social media sites where there, and then the social media buttons came (sites like Digg etc). Well yes, that is more or less exactly what I'm saying. You will find that the more technical people are (people who actually do the coding, programmers, etc...) the more instances you will see of people lol'ing about this whole "Web 2.0" label to begin with, for exactly this reason. "Web 2.0" is a marketing term, something the sales people labeled the current web "experience" as a gimmick. And to an extent I will not bitch about it being labeled as such. You are right, change is a gradual process. We occasionally take "snapshot" looks at how things currently are and label them accordingly. That's how it is with everything. Look at music for instance. All music is put into generic "genre" bucket(s) but you know if you get nit-picky about it, most music is a bit more ambiguous and can't perfectly fit into one bucket. And then moving up, music is put into broader categories like "90's music, 80's music, 70's music etc..." and people think of each decade as being predominantly one genre over the other. For example with 60's to 70's music most people think "hippie music", even though you know if you start looking at it more in a more granular way, There are a lot of songs and artists during that time that are not "hippie music" and there was a lot of evolution in the music industry that had nothing to do with hippies at all. The overall point I'm trying to make here is that yes, change is gradual but in order to make categories and labels like "Web 2.0" or "Web 3.0" you have to abstract out details and individual steps in the change and look for "mile markers" so to speak. Yes, the fact that FB can be utilized by people all over the world vs. only English speakers is a significant thing but it brings the same Web 2.0 experience to more people, not create a new Web 3.0 experience for everybody. And again, throwing more people into the mix will most likely act as a catalyst for new ideas and changes that will eventually lead to a "Web 3.0" mile marker, but throwing more people into the mix in and of itself is not a top level mile marker. If it helps, think of it in terms software versions. The (simplified) convention of software versions is that each major marker is measured by Widget X and then "minor" updates are measured by "Widget X.Y". All kinds of little things are added between Widget 1.0 and Widget 2.0 and sometimes released as 1.1 or 1.4 or whatever but the "snapshot" is going from 1.0 to 2.0. Applying this concept to "Web X.0", the ability to make websites multi-lingual would be the equivalent of saying we have gone from Web 2.0 to Web 2.1 or Web 2.5 to 2.6 or whatever. This is the primary difference between computers and abstracting code and humans abstracting ideas. With computers, yes you are abstracting, but in the end, everything is accounted for. With humans, in order to abstract, we must find predominant patterns and disregard the rest to feasibly look forward. That is not to say that things are totally lost, it's just that we simply consider only the most predominant things when trying to analyze and predict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaseman Posted March 10, 2011 Author Share Posted March 10, 2011 And again, throwing more people into the mix will most likely act as a catalyst for new ideas and changes that will eventually lead to a "Web 3.0" mile marker, but throwing more people into the mix in and of itself is not a top level mile marker. I can see where you're coming from, and I agree translating and semantics may not be the web 3.0, but it definitely can lead to the web 3.0. And I'm sensing that you guys find it meaningless to label the web eras? I think it has a positive aspect which helps to keep the chaotic internet focused. Though I agree that as you said web x.0 may not be a scientific enough term, and rather a marketing gimmick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Well like I said, I personally do not completely disagree with labeling web eras - I just have minor beefs and differences in opinion about where those mile markers should be placed. But then, everybody does. With marketing, it basically boils down to someone having the balls to place and declare a marker and then see how many people agree with it - IOW success is measured by popularity. As you can see all over the place, making decisions based on popularity isn't always the correct path, but you can't please everybody all the time and overall "majority rules" is about the fairest thing you can do most the time. Example: I can scream all day that the sky is blue and 99 people can scream it is red and I can be absolutely right and they can all be terribly wrong but if 99 out of 100 people want to structure living together around the notion that the sky is red, it makes more sense for me to STFU or GTFO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.