Or, how the Web was won – and branded.
The other day someone asked me if I thought we had made it to Web 3.0 yet. Good question, but I’m not sure I agree with the terms of the discussion.

Let me explain:

Web “version” is a misnomer.
Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, once described the term “Web 2.0” as a “piece of jargon”:

“Nobody really knows what it means . . . If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people-to-people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along.”
– “Web 2.0” on Wikipedia.

In other words, the web is a continuum. Much like time, space and the universe. It is constantly changing and evolving. New technologies emerge and disappear regularly, and there is no defined timeframe for these occurrences.

Proponents of web versioning explain that Web 2.0 represents a new usage of the web that facilitates interactive information sharing, interoperability, user-centred design and collaboration on the World Wide Web. This sentiment has been repeated time and again. I’m not so sure.

Social networking isn’t new . . .
Remember BBSes? Those modem-to-modem Bulletin Board Systems that were popular long before the web was? As the web progressed, BBSes turned into user and news groups, then into forums and blogs, and finally to their current iteration of micro-blogs (Twitter, Facebook).

. . . neither is the technology.
Some argue that the second version of the web is defined by its technologies. Ajax is the primary example. But what is Ajax? (Other than an acronymn for “Asynchronous JavaScript + XML”?) It is a technique in which you use JavaScript and XMLHttpRequest to update data on a page without a page refresh. The technologies used to achieve this have been around long before Web 2.0. Just ask Sun Microsystems. They introduced Java Applets way back in 1995.

The reality is the web is not a piece of software that can be defined by development cycles, but a medium. And as will all media, they change and they mature. This change is gradual and constant, much like the growth and development of a human being.

So if the web’s not new, why are people versioning it?

We wanted to be digital pioneers – again.
There are two reasons the web has been versioned. The first involves ownership.

When the web was first gaining popularity, it was a brave new world. Being a web designer or a developer was exciting and respected. The people involved in the early stages of the web were breaking new ground on a medium that would change society on a global scale. They were pioneers.

As things evolved, the mystique, and adventure began to wane. The divide between the good, and not so good web professionals grew. The digital revolution had similar effects on many related professions. Suddenly being a web designer or graphic designer could mean anything from creating a pamphlet and site for a local church, to working on rock posters, to creating compelling interactive pieces for major brands. The playing field got muddy and mixed up. And so, in the early to mid-2000s you had an industry of web professionals looking to re-capture their glory days.

And we needed something new to sell.
And that brings us to the primary reason the web was versioned. In the early 2000s the dot-com bubble burst. Faith in the miracles of Silicon Valley was at an all-time low, and the economy of start-ups and investments had dried up. Investor confidence was shaken to its foundations. People stopped buying.

Web professionals, and technology evangelists (yes that’s a real job title) could not sell the web. The web was unstable, a poor investment, or at least it was in the eyes of those who held the purse strings. Even if there was a company, service, or product that had legitimate value it was very difficult to get the money necessary to develop it.

One of the victims of the bubble burst were publisher of technology training books. Many of us can remember going into a Walmart, Zellers, or Chapters during this time and seeing bins full of discount computer training books. One of the more prominent companies had an idea. Enter Tim O’Reilly of O’Reilly Media.

In 2004 O’Reilly Media held the “Web 2.0” conference. In one swift, simple, industry-relevant turn of a phrase, O’Reilly filled the needs of both new web professionals looking for meaning in their carries, and gave the venture capitalists in Silicon Valley something new to sell.

Introducing the all-new, completely redesigned Internet!
Web 2.0 was new, yet familiar. Business people were already confortable the idea of software versions, and had seen how new versions of software often improved on the former. Software was a technology and so was the internet. The jump in logic was easy for those with little knowledge of the industry. Combine this new term with the success of newly labeled technologies such as Google Maps, and Youtube, and investors opened their pocket books again.

Along with this new buzz word came new demand. Web professionals with 2.0 skills were in demand again. Professionals with the skill level to leverage these existing technologies in new ways could finally separate themselves from the masses. A second Renaissance, and a new bubble, was created.

Just like the first dot-com bubble, there were legitimate businesses and technologies, and not-so-legitimate ones. For every Facebook there are dozen of also-rans that get money from investors but failed to connect. The difference now is that investors are more cautious, and the failure of one start-up does not generate enough fear and panic to take down all of them.

Was the versioning of the web a bad thing? Likely no. It helped restore a struggling industry and helped all of us in the world of interactive move forward in our careers. It also helped, and will continue to help, break down communication barriers globally. But I’d argue that those benefits are just a by-product of versioning the web. The real intention was to make money, and it worked.

As for Web 3.0 . . .
Are we there yet? No, and we will likely not be until the industry as a whole needs us to be. Many people have tried to use Web 3.0 as a tool to sell new technologies and ideas, but we need to reach industrial consensus before we’ll be ready to move forward with that label. And until there is an event, whether crisis or celebration, that will galvanize the industry again, Web 2.0 will likely stand.