In an attempt to avoid arguments about what exactly web 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 are, from now on I will adopt a new tactic.
Anything that is traditional, primarily mono-directional and non user generated or synergistic will earn the title of 1.0 (and there is business 1.0 just as much as there is web 1.0)
Anything that leverages the power of community, includes user generated content, delivers in the cloud, is scalable and modular according to user need will earn the moniker of x.O
I’m less interested in a 1/2/3 definition than in broadening the horizons and creating new eco-systems.
And if truth be told – I like creating new nomenclature – my list thus far is;
SaaS/s : Software as a service that substitutes an existing offering
SaaS/v : Software as a service that adds value to existing offerings
business or web x.o : see above
HBD : Holistic business Design (and yes the capitilisation is intentional) designing all aspects of a business, not just the product or service offering. Looking at structures, processes, employment and strategy in order to meet internal and external stakeholder aims. Something I spend much time thinking about in my role with designIndustry
Hmmm. If the capitalisation is intentional shouldn’t the abbreviation match the phrase? Ie HbD?
I think “Web x.0” makes a lot more sense than web 3.0 – having 300 definitions of Web 3.0 is not useful, and really the term will never have even a shred of real meaning until O’Reilly himself proclaims what Web 3.0 really is, how it differs from 2.0, and they throw a conference about it. Everyone else is just kidding themselves 🙂
I tend to just use “2.0” to encompass anything anyone else tries to call 3.0 at the moment, but maybe x.0 has potential as well.
I might start using SaaS/v is casual conversation and see how long it takes people to say “what the frick are you on about” rather than just nodding their heads like they understand. 🙂
I like new nomenclature and neologisms as well. For instance guess who owns unitasking.com? 🙂