I hate it because it's so- Web 2.0. As in yesterday. The growth and strength of the cloud computing format has evolved so much in the last two years, that I have trouble using this term any longer. Web 2.0 is old, it's used, and it's over. Are we into Web 3.0? No- and we shouldn't use that term either. Know why? Because it will be over tomorrow. The terminology evokes a feeling of AOL 4.0, 5.0, etc. I assure you nobody will be receiving a CD in the mail with Web 3.0 on it anytime soon.The Web is evolving into something that we cannot predict. Google Wave, Google Voice, the CrunchPad, iPhone, The Apple Tablet, Google OS, Web Apps... there really is just no predicting how these devices or tools will change our communication or productivity habits over the next few years. Who would have predicted 10 years ago that the "Google" company would be more relevant than Microsoft or AOL Time-Warner? Who could have predicted that social networking would help millions of old friends reunite online?
How do we predict what will happen tomorrow? Next year Google Wave could be allowing us to "wave" at each other all over the world and could, once again, morph how we communicate. The "2.0, 3.0, 4.0" way of describing the current Web hearkens back to a time when computing was app-based, meaning you bought a software app, uploaded it to your computer and used it. Computing is becoming Web-app based, and there is no known nomenclature that this really fits into.
So- what would we call it? How would we frame the current state of the Web? My first thought is: The Internets. That sounds funny, right? When you say it- it's a joke on George Bush, but you know what? The Web is now plural. The Web is no longer a network, it is a million networks, social networks, image networks, media networks, video networks, and the more I hear Jon Stewart or Keith Olbermann use it as a joke, the more it sounds normal. I hate to give George Bush credit for anything, but his propensity to screw up the English language served him right here.
In the old Midwest, around Chicago, adding plurals to certain words is just what we do.
Daughter: "Where are you going, Mommy?"
Mom: "I'm going to the Jewel's." (Jewel is a supermarket here in Chicago)
Son: "Dad, where do the Bears play?"
Dad: "They play at Soldiers Field." (It's Soldier Field)
The habit of making the terms plural, I think, gives the places more meaning, and implies ownership to an entity that doesn't appear to be owned by anyone (who is Jewel?). Why go to Soldier Field?; surely the field was named for more than one soldier.
Okay, so you don't like that one, but you feel like you still need to classify the Web. Maybe you'd like something a little more cerebral. Since the Web is like an evolution of a species, it could follow the stages of our own evolutionary theory. This would follow these stages:- Hadeon- Earth forms, gets hit by meteors and sets the stage for life as we know it.
- Archean- Bacteria develop primitive forms of photosynthesis. Photosynthetic cyanobacteria evolve.
- Proterozoic- Eukaryotic cells appear, Cambrian explosion, modern phyla of animals appear.
- Phanerozoic, which then includes: Literally the "period of well-displayed life.
- Paleozoic- Earth begins to look recognizable as we know it.
- Mesozoic- First evidence of viruses is noticeable.
- Cenozoic- Anatomically modern humans appear in Africa.
Me- I'm sticking with - (drawl) - The Internets.
Thanks to clickfarmer for the AOL photo.
Thanks to wikipedia for the Tree of Life photo.