ON WEB 3.0 vs. WEB 2007

LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!

That battle cry comes to mind after reading through the kerfuffle on Techmeme over the last 24 hours, in reaction to John Markoff's Sunday piece in the New York Times preemptively "announcing" the coming of "Web 3.0" (image source).

As Dave Winer reminds us,

"The "Web 3.0" article is on the front page of today's Times."

Robert Scoble's taking umbrage and announcing a counter, pre-emptive move with "Web 2007".   As he announces from the mountain-top:

"Well, I was talking with several Web leaders tonight (seriously, I was) and we decided that Web 3.0 just won’t do.

So, tonight, we’re announcing Web 2007."

I checked Tim O'Reilly's site if there's any reaction, since his corner invented, trade-marked, and turbo-conferenced "Web 2.0".  Nothing yet.  He's probably recovering from the bug he'd been fighting through co-hosting the third "Web 2.0" conference last week.

I do like Christopher Coulter's naming suggestion in response to Scoble's post in the comments:

"Web 2007 Starter Edition, Web 2007 Home Edition N, Web 2007 Home Basic Edition, Web 2007 Home Premium, Web 2007 Gamer Edition, Web 2007 Professional Edition, Web 2007 Business Edition, Web 2007 Plus!, Web 2007 Professional Plus! Edition, Web 2007 Mobile Edition, Web 2007 CE, Web 2007 Ultimate Edition, Web 2007 Server, Web 2007 Data Center…

Comment by Christopher Coulter — November 12, 2006 @ 11:18 pm"

I'd amend it a bit to keep it in line with Microsoft's updated naming convention as it tries to get more of it's products online:

"Web 2007 Office Live, Web 2007 Office Live Basics (Beta), Web 2007 Office Live Essentials (Beta), Web 2007 Office Live Collaboration (Beta), Web 2007 Live Meeting (Beta), Web 2007 Office Live Solution Developers (Beta), Web 2007 Live Blog and Message Boards..."

In all seriousness, given how much work there is to be done both on the technology and business fronts with what's on our collective plates right now, I'd humbly suggest going with "Web 2.1" for at least 2007, if not also for 2008.  Beta, of course.

That is of course assuming anyone wants to continue with the name game at all.

Ross Mayfield's opinion on this whole thing rings in the back of all our minds:

"Web 2.0 will be known as the name of a bubble.  And 3.0 would only be a marketing disaster."

Anyone else want to jump into the ring?

Comments

[Ted Rheingold]

Agreed. Remember when companies rushed to add '.com' to their formal names ... and then removed them. The Web X.0 will have the same embarrasing effect.

We need a term that means 'the web now' that can be used year in a year out. One that is always current. Somehting along the lines of "bleeding edge." This way no one wastes time debating what is what.

[Yaser Anwar]

Maybe we can have a Matrix style name-

Web 2.0 Revisited (lol)

or maybe just maybe

Web 2.0 Generation NEXT (sorry Pepsi!)