stii.za.net » Blog Archive » Who dictates the evolution of the web?

Who dictates the evolution of the web?

Mar 22

The web is like a living entity. It evolves constantly. We see something new every day. Yet the question remains, who determines what gets to be popular and what not?

If we look at the Semantic Web. Kick-ass stuff. Yet, the semantic web was defined before Web2.0. Okay, that is not entirely true, but the term Web2.0 was coined after the term Semantic Web and most Web2.0 applications only sprouted up after the term was coined.

So why is Web2.0 so popular and the Semantic Web is not? Simple answer really. Big corporates bought into the idea of Web2.0. They saw the ROI much clearer than they did in the Semantic Web!

Why? Because:

Web2.0 is all about creating communities. The ones with the biggest user base is the most successfull. And if you have eyeballs, you can make MONEY!

The Semantic Web is about sharing data accross domains. How the hell are they going to make money doing THAT?! In other words, data from my site can be displayed on your site effortlessly. That could potentially mean less eyeballs, which in return could mean less ad revenue!

Oops, big problem… Its all about the money afterall! So the big players rather went forward with the Web2.0 model.

So that gets back to my question. Who dictates and drives the evolution of the web?! Is it at all a natural evolution? I’m thinking not. How can it be? Why was it so easy to adopt Web2.0? Maybe because there was such a good marketing drive behind it. So who drove that marketing campaign? Obviously the guys who saw the $$$ in it. And they are? I’ll leave that open for discussion…

technorati tags:semanticweb, web2.0, web3.0, technology

Blogged with Flock

Sharing is caring:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

11 Comments to "Who dictates the evolution of the web?"

Victoire said: On 03/22/2007 at 9:53 am
Hi Stii

From what I’ve read so far - and I must admit I really haven’t gone into enough detail from the Semantic web side, my experience is more with Web2.0 application - my humble opinion is that the Semantic web is not “user friendly” enough for the every day user to just go ahead and use… yet.

I studied programming and I have troubles understanding how it would be implemented! I’ve loved the Web2.0 gizmo’s that are really just plug and play… making use of what one would call abstraction - I don’t need to worry about what goes on in the technical background, it gives me the functionality I want with as little hassle as possible.

I’m definitely looking forward to exploring the Semantic web and what it can offer me - hopefully as easily and hassle-free as possible…
Stii said: On 03/22/2007 at 10:03 am
Hey Victoire,

Valid point. Thing is that Web2.0 has the tools to do the abstraction (who provided most of those?) while the Semantic web is almost toolless. If the tools start happening (like plugins for blogs that will formulate the data appropriately) the adoption will go quicker. My issue is why is there so little tools?! Only Wordpress and Drupal got some semantic tools so far. Guys like Blogger have none.

We as developers need to create the tools and need to create the need for the Semantic Web. Only then we’ll see greater adoption of the technology.

That being said, if Google for example threw its weight behind it, it would grow a lot quicker. Problem is, they are not doing that. Why? Same with a lot of big Web2.0 companies.
Stii said: On 03/22/2007 at 10:06 am
Oh, and just as a matter of interest, the complexity of microformats does not lay with the implementation of it. Thats the simple part. If you can do basic HTML you can format data accoring to Microformat standards. It will be the applications that collect and use the microformats that will be complex (possibly).
Chuck Henderson said: On 03/22/2007 at 11:23 am
I have gone through the above topic its about of web marketing and this essiential in daily

life. WEB MARKETING
Stii said: On 03/22/2007 at 11:38 am
Just explain to me how what you said have any relevance to this topic, Chuck?
I stopped reading at:

“Our Goal: Develop and implement strategic and tactical web site focused marketing strategies that will accomplish your Goal.”
Charl van Niekerk said: On 03/22/2007 at 11:52 am
It’s spam stii, just click “delete”.
Imel said: On 03/22/2007 at 1:42 pm
So much for SpamKarma then.
I have switched to it and (so far) have had no false positives.

As to the topic at hand, I think the web is being influenced (like most things) by consumers, i.e. the users, as business has to eventually do whatever consumers want, so as to maximise their market potential.
In the end businesses simply implement what the majority wants.
Some sort of democracy fuelled by consumerism.
Stii said: On 03/22/2007 at 2:06 pm
To some extent you are right. Although not completely. If that was the case, then why is Linux not MUCH more popular? Why do people spend thousands of rands on MS Office when Open Office is free? Why is the semantic web not better accepted? It is afterall great technologies. No, marketing plays a big role and if you don’t want your users to know about a great technology, simply don’t implement or tell them about it. Did the big guys ask consumers if they want Web2.0 applications? No, they simply implemented it because it was mutually beneficial. Is the Semantic Web mutually beneficial? Not yet. It is for the users, not so much to the publishers. Don’t get me wrong. Web2.0 is great! It can be a lot greater if it is merged with semantics. Call it Social Semantic sites. My issue here is why has this not yet happened? We can all as users see the benefits. If you look at OpenID. You can see the value in it as a user. Why do Google and Yahoo not implement this? If they did it, then everyone would surely follow as half the internet population would have OpenIDs then.
Max Kaizen said: On 03/22/2007 at 5:48 pm
Good gracious ..finally some time to delight in your insights Stii!
Okay so, not sure if you ever read Paul Graham but I am always refreshed by his perspective. And about 2hrs ago in preparing a course on Web 2.0 I looked back at my del.icio.us & was just pulling a quote
(pardon me if it’s a little long: but I think you’ll enjoy it: I’m with you on this)

Tim says the phrase “Web 2.0″ first arose in “a brainstorming session between O’Reilly and Medialive International.” What is Medialive International? “Producers of technology tradeshows and conferences,” according to their site. So presumably that’s what this brainstorming session was about. O’Reilly wanted to organize a conference about the web, and they were wondering what to call it.

I don’t think there was any deliberate plan to suggest there was a new version of the web. They just wanted to make the point that the web mattered again. It was a kind of semantic deficit spending: they knew new things were coming, and the “2.0″ referred to whatever those might turn out to be.

And they were right. New things were coming. But the new version number led to some awkwardness in the short term. In the process of developing the pitch for the first conference, someone must have decided they’d better take a stab at explaining what that “2.0″ referred to. Whatever it meant, “the web as a platform” was at least not too constricting.

The story about “Web 2.0″ meaning the web as a platform didn’t live much past the first conference. By the second conference, what “Web 2.0″ seemed to mean was something about democracy. At least, it did when people wrote about it online. The conference itself didn’t seem very grassroots. It cost $2800, so the only people who could afford to go were VCs and people from big companies.

And yet, oddly enough, Ryan Singel’s article about the conference in Wired News spoke of “throngs of geeks.” When a friend of mine asked Ryan about this, it was news to him. He said he’d originally written something like “throngs of VCs and biz dev guys” but had later shortened it just to “throngs,” and that this must have in turn been expanded by the editors into “throngs of geeks.” After all, a Web 2.0 conference would presumably be full of geeks, right?

Well, no. There were about 7. Even Tim O’Reilly was wearing a suit, a sight so alien I couldn’t parse it at first. I saw him walk by and said to one of the O’Reilly people “that guy looks just like Tim.”

“Oh, that’s Tim. He bought a suit.” I ran after him, and sure enough, it was. He explained that he’d just bought it in Thailand.

The 2005 Web 2.0 conference reminded me of Internet trade shows during the Bubble, full of prowling VCs looking for the next hot startup. There was that same odd atmosphere created by a large number of people determined not to miss out. Miss out on what? They didn’t know. Whatever was going to happen—whatever Web 2.0 turned out to be.

Right on the money my friend!
stii.za.net » Blog Archive » Why Web2.0 was created said: On 03/23/2007 at 6:12 am
[...] Kaizen quoted something Paul Graham said in a comment on the post “Who dictates the evolution of the web?” that is very interesting. Its a long post, but worth the [...]
stii.za.net » Blog Archive » A mother of a microformats tool said: On 03/28/2007 at 7:24 am
[...] a while now I’ve been on about microformats and how useful they can be. What was lacking up to now is the TOOLS to make them useful! Here is a handy-dandy one. So Paul and Victoire, I [...]