Thursday, July 12, 2007

The most pointless example of web 3.0?

For years, high concept action films have been sold to movie studios with one or two line pitches which encapsulate everything worth knowing. For example, for the film Days of Thunder, "Top Gun meets Nascar".

Whenever anyone talks about the next step for the internet, and new technology, it's good practice to use the same rationale. For instance, web 2.0's Wikipedia "An online encyclopedia everyone can contribute to'.

Web 3.0 seems to revolve around an online world in 3D, but noone seems to have come up with any reason why 3D would be preferable to 2D for anything other than gaming.

And the best example of this I've found is 3DMailbox, which you can see in more detail on TheWayoftheWeb, here.

If it isn't easier, quicker, better, or more fun, then why do it?


  1. Hi Badge,
    Thanks for introducing me to a new notion of web3.0. I thought 3.0 was (as far as there has been a worthwhile definition) about the semantic web.
    But then, as I said in a previous post - maybe it's all just a question of semantics...

  2. Hi,
    I think the fact there are at least two or more conflicting ideas about the next generation of the web probably means that trying to define web 3.0 before it actually appears is pretty pointless.

    No-one called sites like Flickr etc Web 2.0 till after they,. and several others, had become established...


The rate of change is so rapid it's difficult for one person to keep up to speed. Let's pool our thoughts, share our reactions and, who knows, even reach some shared conclusions worth arriving at?