Feature Post


Web 2.0 vs Web 3.0?

So whats with the Web 2.0 thing? My take is that these are just "buzzwords"; not a product or service; a technological state achieved by the web. With the rise of social web sites (facebook, twitter, googlefriend, linked, digg, reddit, etc); making the web appear live, more user interactive, turning the user data into information; it was started to be called web 2.0.

It was only after the web 2.0 was named 2.0; the old traditional static web sites were named web 1.0; which incorporates html tables, guestbooks, marquees, gif buttons, etc - the static web.

Some people confuse that AJAX is web 2.0; rather AJAX is just a part of web 2.0, used to build rich/interactive user interfaces. Several other technologies that goes in web 2.0 are like RSS Aggregation, REST, SOAP, web widgets, social networks, taggings, new open architectures, bloggings, wikis, collaboration, sharing;

While web 3.0 is about small web applets (weblets?) peiced toghether on standard interfaces to enrich online user experiences from anywhere any device (web, mobile, pc, desktop, netbook). They say its more about semantic web. Which is more like linked-data(google wave), turning every data into information. Technologies like XML, RDF, OWL, SPARQL.

See how Microsoft is investing in Semantic Web technologies.

And for web 4.0 someone wrote "
The web become sentient, rises up, conquers the world and enslaves the human race?
" (0:


  1. Paul Graham is as good as Joel Spolsky. This is a must read as I believe the way he has captured the essence of web 2.0, no one else has: http://www.paulgraham.com/web20.html

  2. Thanks for your comment and the great link.

    A version number usually identifies/signifies a border between whats in and whats outside a version.

    When he says that web 2.0 is about AJAX, Democracy, and Dont maltreat users, I assume he is implicity agreeing the statement that 'web 2.0 is just a technological state that it has achieved over a period of time'.

    While trying to provide an insight of what the web 2.0 is, he eventually gets more inclined towards how a technology should be approached.

    "Google doesn't try to force things to happen their way. They try to figure out what's going to happen, and arrange to be standing there when it does. That's the way to approach technology—and as business includes an ever larger technological component, the right way to do business."

    The writer seems not so pro-Microsoft, and I believe the reason being, Google is young, so are its ideas - thus attractive. Microsoft has been in the business(desktop business, I should say) for years and, probably, the vendors/competitors are "fedup" of its Monopoly. Plus Google is caters the "mass" en masse, not really the corporate sector; while Microsoft is all into corporate(well, too much of an off topic).

    I believe it would take "some" time for Microsoft to respond to it and come up with something far better/useful.

    Also the Google's approach may be is towards "figuring out whats going to happen", Microsoft is more inclined towards intended technologies - that is, thinking how a technology should be.

    Eventually Paul agrees that web 2.0 is "like the word 'allopathic.' It just means doing things right, and it's a bad sign when you have a special word for that."

    Btw, thats a good read with a great insight.