I couldn't help cringing as I read an article on Fortune Magazine online today by Jessi Hempel. Entitled 'Web 2.0 is so over. Welcome to Web 3.0', Hempel stalks the concept of Web 2.0, pounces from behind and then narrowly misses before crashing painfully to the ground. The tagline says it all: Facebook and Twitter may be more popular than ever among users, but what are they worth? It's not about the use and popularity of social networking and blogging that is so important to Hempel, as ... wait for it.... how much money they can make. In this respect, s/he suggests, Web 2.0 has been an abject failure. Well, perhaps Web 2.0 is a failure financially, but Hempel is clearly missing the point about Web 2.0 tools and services. This is an argument reminiscent to the banal ramblings of the likes of Andrew Keen, tinged with a smidgeon of bitterness that he failed to become an ultra-rich member of the Silicon Valley Set. Hempel suggests that while we are Facebooking each other, we are ignoring all the pay-per-click ads that are loitering on the sidebars of our screens. Shame. Ironically, the Fortune page on which the post appears is positively teeming with strong-arm ads such as '1 Rule to a Flat Stomach', 'End Back Pain in 2009' and a link to seduce readers to 'try Fortune for free for 2 issues!' (Personally I found it hard to ignore them).
Well, I have some news. The whole point of Web 2.0, is that it's not about making profit or screwing over the opposition. It is not about creating killer applications either. That's because Web 2.0 is not and has never been about tools or services, many of which have been around almost as long as the Web itself. No, Web 2.0 is more about how people are connecting, sharing and communicating using the tools and services. There never was a revolution on the Web. It was always an evolution - a gradual transition across the web from a 'quagmire of stickiness' to an 'architecture of participation'. Web 2.0 is about user-generated content and community. Web 2.0 is rich and exciting because anyone can participate and contribute. If and when Web 3.0 comes along (and some would argue it is already here) it will still be about making connections, sharing and contributing. This will be done in a more intelligent and economic manner we hope, but it won't make any more money than any of the social networking tools have done. Let's leave that for the likes of Google, eBay and Amazon.
Web 2.0 services that have survived whilst others have fallen do so because they are popular and supported by their users (Wikipedia is a classic example of users funding the resource). Those that fail are subject to a virtual natural selection process - the survival of the most relevant. If it's good, it will survive somehow. Let's keep Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 (yes, and Web x.0 too) as a means of creating and maintaining our communities of interest and practice, and stop worrying about whether we can make money out of them, shall we?
Posts
8 comments:
Nicely put.
My dad can't understand why I would put so much energy into writing blogs etc instead of producing books and marketing them online. My brothers, sister and I have been trying to explain Web 2.0 and the sharing of ideas and information for free. In some ways I can see his point, we do need to find some way to reward people for their efforts online. Maybe this will be the outcome of Web 3.0. (Although, I must say, I benefit as much from the blogs and contributions of others as they probably do from mine! That's a reward in itself.)
If Web 1.0 was the 'Read only' and Web 2.0 is the 'Read and Write Web' then I believe that Web 3.0 will be the 'Read, Write and Speak' Web.
Speak stands for speaking and listening and is all about synchronous communication versus asynchronous communication in Web 2.0.
Synchronous technology examples are:
- Skype
- Instant Messaging
- Webconferencing
- Virtual Classrooms for webinars, live presentations, live trainings
- a 'Live support' IM button on a website
- a 'Live sales support' IM button on a webshop
- Second Life, the second largest VoIP provider after Skype
Can you think of others?
- virtual classrooms
Great point Steve - can I use your explanation of web2 on a blog post I'm inspired to write for teachers in getting connected please? I will put a link to your blog and authorship of course! Several years ago a colleague and I developed "digital learning centres" that we thought were unique, and feeling entreprenurial wanted to "sell" them, however the concept of connectivity and building shared learning communities is more powerful and with the invent of wiki it is important (I believe) that if you take from the web you should give back to the web - no money need be involved, but the pleasure of knowing you are making a difference for others
Thanks for your comments so far everyone. And yes, Justine, you are free to use any of the materials here with appropriate acknowledgement. I pleased you find my explanation useful. There is of course no charge! :-)
" Web 2.0 was never a revolution on the Web. It was always an EVOLUTION..is a gradual transition across the web from a 'quagmire of stickiness' to an 'architecture of participation'" I couldnt agree more with your opinion!! I think its one of the best definitions of web 2.0 I have ever read!Thank you!I have shared it on twitter and I will write it in my phd also...with reference of course!! For me Web 2.0 is a vision of a better world of communication, participation, co-creation and without any focus on the profit that became true...isnt it the best reward for all of us???
User-generated content; mashups of content from multiple, distributed sources; and vibrant, connected online communities where content and opinions are shared were all features of the Web in the 1990s (Tripod, Geocities, etc.). Without money and a proper business model, nothing is sustainable in this world...
Very nicely put. Please continue throwing your thoughts into the crowd!
Justine, you write "can I use your explanation of web2 on a blog post I'm inspired to write for teachers in getting connected please?"
Where can I learn more about this teachers' connection?
Steve, I admit to a love/hate relationship with Fortune. You have to bear in mind the audience they are writing for: conservative business people. Fortune is useful for seeing what's going on in executive heads but dangerous if not balanced with reading more egalitarian, enlightened fare.
Post a Comment