Web 3.0: You Say You’re on an Infolution? Well…
Web 1.0 started as a streaming publish-to-read medium; web 2.0 has established itself as a publishing platform for everyone. Now web 3.0 is said to be a technologically advanced Internet, where the user executes and the machines do the thinking.
Nice try. But at this point it’s not the technology that needs to be improved. It’s time that we finally get what we were promised in the beginning: An interactive, social and mainly - simple Internet…
What is interactive?
Interactive is what the Internet was supposed to be from the start. With the exception of ebay, wikipedia and a couple of intelligent user forums, there has not been a lot of interactivity on the web. The reason for that is that there is a big misconception of what “interactive” really means.
I started working in the “interactive department” of a big branding company in 2000. Back then “interactive” was understood as “clicking around”, “movies, flash and stuff” or “spinning logos”.
In the mean time interactive means round colors, shadows and glossy effects and: “users write content”. Websites where people post their stuff together are called “social”. Actually web 2.0 is not really social; mostly it’s just a lot of noise. User generated content as a paradigm is without any doubt a big step for the industry. However, the biggest step is yet to come: To become interactive, social, simple.
Social, interactive means: People communicate and help develop better products and high value content through communication. Right now, most people are streaming their thoughts, bookmarks, ideas. Yes, forums have been around for years, but there people mostly run in insulting circles and rarely produce something new.
Social web = democratic web
Web 2.0 is the base for a democratic web. But like all democratic systems, the web needs basic democratic standards. Yes, rules. Simple democratic rules that apply to coding, design (usability is a form of politeness) and communication (not even Kramer has the right to insult). These rules are not there to bore, restrict or subordinate us, they guarantee to get the maximum out of a collective. They guarantee a maximum amount of freedom for the maximum amount of people.
Recently there is a lot of talk about Web 3.0. Phil Wainewright form ZD Net has written a series on the subject and relaunched the discussion of what web 3.0 would or should be.
Basically he suggests that Web 3.0 is going to deliver a new generation of (business) applications that will be ubiquitous and technically more sophisticated, semantic (programs understanding human language). The question is: Is artificial intelligence what we really need? Is more technology the answer? Shouldn’t we rather bring to an end what we’ve started before we hype up the machinery even more?
Interactive is social: Imagine a social bmw.com
Web 2.0 is preceded by discussion forums, wikipedia, and ebay. Yet Web 2.0 has to become much easier to use than wikipedia, the communication has to be more structured than in current forums and the interactive social aspect has to transcend the monotonous “flawless”, “great anytime”, “fantastic experience” ebay comments. To reach the full power of interactive technology we need to catalyze communication.
If adapted to other sectors than bookmarking, forums or auctions, that is including car websites, newspapers, or portals, the next generation of the web will reveal the true power of contemporary communication. Imagine a social BMW.com, imagine an interactive times.com, imagine a democratic yahoo.com. The socio-cultural implications of a truly interactive web are unprecedented.
Interactive is social. Is being more social progress?
It’s obvious. Collective intelligence is far more powerful than a single brain. In order to canalize the energy of connected brains we need rules. With those rules in place many can contribute to one cause.
Of course our mainly profit - i.e. self-oriented - business structures need to adapt a little. Humans don’t need to change. As individuals we are highly developed social animals. In groups we act like beasts, and some of the most evil beasts are corporations. As individuals we are well aware of the rules, the does and don’ts and the benefit of those rules. All that needs to change is that businesses adapt to these rules.
Oh, I hear you saying, this is a big change. Social businesses! It’s not. Once companies realize that they’re more trustworthy, more competitive, more profitable, if they integrate their customers into the production cycle and openly communicate with them instead of streaming glossy marketing phrases, the old egomaniac business structures will fall like dominoes, fall, like TV is falling, falling to the feet of YouTube:
There is a fundamental shift in consumer behavior going on - and the question is no longer if, but rather when, more television consumption will occur via the Internet than traditional broadcast and cable television. The key tipping point will be when a startup is able to distribute proper television content over the Internet legally. People will begin to abandon their cable tv subscriptions in favor of Internet distribution.M. Arrington on Techcrunch
You probably guess where I am aiming at. If you are my age you still have your ears full of the capitalist hooray over the communist state. At the time, the victory of the free market over the centrally planned economy provoked an ethically repulsive exultation of the egoist versus the social existence.
But, as with all historic developments, the pendulum started swinging back without people even noticing. By the end of the nineties corporations invested billions in the Internet and with that they signed their own death sentence.
Power in the hands of the customer
In the mean time the power has shifted back into the hands of the consumer. Capitalism is turning into a collectively intelligent form of consumerism. Through the Internet, the consumer has an unprecedented amount of power over the companies.
We can compare prices and quality; we can read about the experiences of other buyers of a certain product, before we buy. After we bought a product we can blog about it; we can cause serious harm to the company that refuses to take our complaint. A hearted blogger can reach more people than a TV ad campaign.
Corporations that want to use those social mechanisms for themselves, by using bloggers for PR purposes get into serious trouble. The consumer has become incredibly shrewd in recognizing PR propaganda. And yes, this is where I am heading to: After the centralized suppressive propagandist political systems collapsed, the propagandist business systems will follow.
Corporations that want to stay successful and not be overrun by the latest developments have to stop trying to influence and start communicating with their customers. Progressive conservative marketing agencies like Edelman may have read the sign of the times but they interpret it wrongly. They are trying to save that sandcastle from drowning while the tide comes in. Don’t use bloggers, write interesting stuff yourself. Always tell us who you are and what you want. If you believe in a free market, you can’t use the brainwashing mass-manipulative techniques of suppressive regimes. But first of all: If you have a good product, we’re happy to market it for you.
Just be simple
As all technological development, the Internet started as a simple thing (web 1.0) became more and more complicated (web 2.0) and will turn into a simple thing again.
Web 3.0 (networked people? networked intelligence?) will be the synthesis of web 1.0 (networked computers) and web 2.0 (networked documents). It is not more technology, it is not more complicated, it’s Internet as simple as it can get. It is more sophisticated.
Under the hood it can be a real maze, just like the TV, the car, the computer as such, but for the consumer (and the Amazon client is a blogger is a consumer) it will be as easy to use as a mixer, hairdryer, vacuum cleaner. The interfaces will be so easy that your grandmother will be able to use it.
Of course designers are interested in how this web 3.0 will look like. Will it have round corners, gloss and shades? Maybe our fellow designers will develop a whole new set of graphic tricks. One thing is for sure: The interfaces will be much simpler, quicker to understand, websites will have less stuff thrown at us, use bigger readable fonts, activate more white space. Web 3.0 will look more like craigslist than nike.com.
www.thenewrevolutionaries
In a recent article on the latest hype entitled www.thenewrevolutionaries TheGuardian picks the following examples as the upcoming shooting stars:
The new MySpace is … Bluedot.us The new YouTube is … Loopt.com The new iTunes is … Pandora.com The new Google is … Powerset.com The new Craigslist is … Yelp.com
It’s no surprise that they all focus on collective intelligence, interactivity and simplicity on the front end.
Better Example ; )
iA recently redesigned asoboo.com a social network for Japanese and international people in or connected to Japan. It’s not quite there yet, some details like search results are still to be fixed and we have an revolutionary web 3.0 idea for the claim that we can’t wait to implement (no not “alpha”). Anyway, it complies to iA’s own 100E2R standard and it gives you a concrete idea of how iA understands Web 3.0. Instead of letting people stream their thoughts into the unknown, we linked people’s profiles into blogging communities. You home page lets you see what people within your community are doing. If you don’t contribute you stay invisible.
It’s a closed community, bit if you want to have a look around, please send a mail to oliver[at]informationarchitects.jp and I’ll send you an invitation to my network.
Have a nice day
Oliver
This article is part 1 of 2. Part two is: Web 2.0 - Economy 3.0!
I really liked reading this article. Strong farsighted points, clear subject matter. Thank you very much for this research.
yer, thanks for this. I totally agree about the lack of interactivity; but I am hoping to build a ‘deliberation’ system. There are a few of them around.
Collective intelligence is definitely the wave of the future.
The key thing will be filtering out the scammers, spammers, and zealots so that actual intelligence can be pooled together to create something greater.
Here is my essay on web 3.0 :
http://www.fredcavazza.net/index.php?2006/11/19/1348
/Fred
You know, I think one of the reasons asoboo has not yet succeeded is because of its design, which screams “too cool for its own good”. I happen to appreciate, and have been influenced by, your page design here and the ideas you put forth. But Asoboo’s market is not the same as this blog, and its austere appearance turns prospective users off, IMO. It might be cool, but it’s not friendly and it’s not likeable. I mean come on, black and pink? Don’t get me wrong, I like the site, it’s very well programmed. But its general design is a negative to me and maybe you’re in too deep to see it how a regular user would.
Also, those predictions from the Guardian are utterly useless and if they really believed them, they’d buy those sites before they’re worth billions. Bluedot.us? Give me a break. Just the domain name rules them out. I could go on and on : )
Sho,
a) Asoboo has not been unsuccessful b) Design appeal is not a key factor of success (compare with other successful sites) c) Asboos design is not especially cool (compare with other successful sites)
Usability, marketing, content and service is what drives a site. If Asoboo just wanted a lot of users they’d have to allow the sexy stuff. Asoboo has turned from a private live porn provider into a pretty cool community. The high ethical standards of those guys are a good foundation for the future. Ethics are a key factor for the quality of a community.
The main problem is marketing. They haven’t done any serious online marketing yet. Instead they have decided to close the site and shut the search engines out hoping to reproduce a mixi effect. Interesting test. But it didn’t work. I am very positive about Asoboos new information design and I am sure Asboo will continue to grow.
But maybe I am too deep…
Which one is correct?
Hey don’t get me wrong. I love asoboo, I think it’s great. I am trying to put myself into the mind of an ordinary user here. Trying to be constructively critical, not insult your efforts, please take it in that spirit : )
The clickflow of asoboo is great, almost perfect - it’s fantastic structural design. The visual design is not appealing to me and I think people use it despite that. It’s too spread out, too .. I don’t have the words to express it, but it’s like the page elements interfere with each other, like a moire pattern. It manages to be both overly simple and overly complex at the same time. I find the effect quite .. discomforting.
I’m not like you, I don’t have a whole vocabulary to describe this stuff. I’m just trying to put into words my reactions, the reactions of just one person .. make of it as you will : )
My criticism of the black and pink, though, is a different matter, I’ll stick by that 100%, they don’t go together and never have. If you want proof, why don’t you do a quick survey of how many times, ever, you’ve gone outside the house in your black pants and fluro pink shirt? Or maybe a black shirt and a fluoro pink scarf?
What’s that? Zero times? Well, Q.E.D. says I.
Sho,
I do appreciate all comments. Even those on the matter of personal taste.
Now what about a black suit and a nice pink cashmere sweater and a white shirt? Very sharp. Totally my style. But I’m 80ties proof. You sound more like you’re born at the end of the 80ties. Right?
And yes, asoboo’s interface is intense. On purpose…
Interesting. In Italy there’s still a great hype for this (real or supposed) “web 2.0″. But thanks to your post, I can see the “3.0″ semplicity is the real “revolution”.
There is potential for almost everything wonderful to happen from Web n.0, and I love to try it all out. BUT…all these “olutions” that have been in the wind - I don’t see any increase in collective decision making stopping the corporations from producing physical, social, military, intellectual toxic junk for the “free market”. I want to see power to the producers, cos if as producers we could decide whether or not it was a good idea to produce particular things, then we’d take more care about the nature of our labour. And the power of desire for instant gratification, which the free market appeals to, would be less. A democratic BMW would be if the car workers could decide to re-organise the factories to make environmentally friendly transport. Could web tools do this kind of democracy?
Very interesting subject this one indeed Oliver.
I believe organizations would have to evolve towards neuronets - using some kind of synchronous network to collaborate - instead of trying to organize all the information in the world, I would rather try to organize the beings that create, share and use those information. Organize humans and the rest will tend to follow.
If you have the time, take a look at this article, it might give you some good input for your future essays.
http://www.21learn.org/arch/articles/hock.html
thanks
I find your blog and the topics you discuss very interesting! You also have good writing skills, despite not being a native speaker. I’m currently looking through the articles from the notebook, when do you anticipate your book to be finished?
Nick, I hope to finish it by the end of the year, but we are overwhelmed with work here…
Collective intelligence is an oxymoron
Well, interesting article. but I don’t agree on Yelp.com. The same site exists in Europe since ages (2001 maybe) and is called http://www.ciao.com So there is nothing new in there, except they have improved a little bit the geographical location (ciao was created before tagging is used on the web so every review had to be part of a City directory)