It's an interesting comparison between the difference between 2.0/1.0 and 3.0/2.0, but the author gives no support as to why he thinks it's education/creation for 3.0 in the future.
Do you think he's spot on, and know any reasons for or against it?
Granted. My case isn't very concrete. I'm going by the very general principle that if something isn't growing -- making new connections, adapting, and creating -- then entropy starts to happen.
I don't think the web can grow much more complex without it outgrowing our ability (as both users and providers) to use it effectively -- at least not to its full potential. Therefore growth will probably have to be balanced by growth in our intuitive knowledge and competencies: education.
To me, it seems that the average user has to know less and less about the underlying web in order to use it to do things. Perhaps you're talking about people that build tools on the web?
I should've just said "Second Life." Those users -- at least the ones who stick around -- invest alot of capital (cultural, emotional, financial, etc).
I don't know if Second Life will be the company that gets the next wave right, but I think we should look at what they (and their users) are doing, to see who'll be the big winners in 5 to 10 years.
Sorry, I know it's pretty fuzzy. I don't know if there are any examples until something starts going wrong (IF something starts going wrong).
You make a good point about the average user needing to know less and less. Which is great, I hope that continues -- and I'm sure it will...
But that also means that users may not be developing any kind of knowledge capital or competence -- unlike the people who build tools.
Developers don't just build tools; they also build their own knowledge and skills at the same time. And their knowledge and skills are specifically 'invested in' (or to use another metaphor, 'married to') those tools, platforms, and applications that they develop. The fact that developers have invested so many years learning to master PHP, Ruby, etc, makes those tools even more valuable -- it makes it less likely for developers to leave them behind.
Whereas the value of web sites and applications to users doesn't necessarily follow the same curve. The fact that it's becoming easier to use means they don't have to make any kind of an investment -- maybe it's just something they do to avoid doing work. After two or three years of using MySpace, how much value, equity, or affinity has been created between MySpace and the user?
My example in the essay was that right now MySpace is doing pretty well, but its value is more in the people using it than the site itself; if users start spending less time there and go somewhere else, like Facebook, they might merely follow each other.
The question to ask is, What would users be leaving behind if they left? What might they follow?
Here's a concrete example: retail rewards cards. (But I think web users are as easily fooled by those kinds of schemes.)
Obviously this is a work in progress. Thanks for pushing me to develop my case.
For me the following sentence says that there is no 'bubble 2.0':
"The overvaluations this time are not being made by businesspeople and investors, but consumers and users." At worst you could argue that this is a fad but not a bubble. Users cannot create bubbles, only investors can.
Also I really don't like the terms: 'Bubble 2.0' and 'Web 3.0'. Can we not wait for some industry consensus before brandishing these terms. (Thanks I had to get that off my chest).
Well, I suppose we can do what the batman movies, or Gundam series do. Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, Batman Begins. Gundam Wing, Gundam Turn A, Gundam Seed.
Web. Web Social. Web Ubiqu. Web Singularity.
I guess most hackers don't like the term web/bubble 2.0/3.0 is because it's overloaded, and hence, imprecise. Thus, ripe for exploitation by marketers, which generally have a bad rep with hackers (sometimes with good reason).
I think the author just means "the next evolutionary step of the web" Just as when people are talking about 2.0, they just mean that the web now was far different than it was back in 1996.
Nice. I like those suggestions... But wouldn't it be more fun just to steal movie titles. How about The Web Identity > The Web Supremecy > The Web Ultimatum... did I get the order right? Anyone remeber the 'Ernest' films?
I agree that the terms are silly and abused, but unfortunately we seem to be getting stuck with them. I'd love to have better ones (know any?), but for now, you have to admit that people at least know what they refer to: things that'd otherwise be too ambiguous. These over-simple terms aren't bypassing consensus, they are a means to consensus-building.
As to the earlier comment, the whole point of the essay is that we need to look at fads as if they are bubbles, users as if they're investors. See Davenport and Becks 'Attention Economy' as well as Mark Anielski's 'Economics of Happiness'. And to see the where I'm eventually trying to lead, see David Warsh's 'Knowledge and the Wealth of Nations' and the 2005 World Bank paper called "Where is the Wealth of Nations."
Do you think he's spot on, and know any reasons for or against it?