Archive for the ‘Web 3.0’ Category

Web 2.0 Unchains the Free Market

On the Internet democracy has established itself as the main engine of commercial success:

  1. Successful website are and have always been democratic: YouTube, Myspace, eBay, Amazon, facebook…
  2. Net neutrality finally prevailed
  3.  var infolink_pid = 63535; var infolink_wsid = 0;

  4. YouTube’s traffic passed Microsoft’s corporate website.
  5. Lately even The New York Times surrendered to social news.

Symbolically, the latest developments parallel the takeover of free countries over non free countries in 1989.

free world

This graph shows the number of nations in the different categories given above for the period for which there are surveys, 1972-2005 (Source: Wikipedia)

 var infolink_pid = 63535; var infolink_wsid = 0;

Websites = Companies = States?

Is it fair to compare countries with websites, websites with corporations? Think about it:

  1. Countries, websites, corporations form social groups that obey to a form of government.
  2. Political systems turn globally to democracy as their preferred form of government
  3. Websites (at least the successful ones) turn globally to democracy as their preferred form of government

The question is not whether corporations will abandon their pyramidal management models, the question is: Which companies are smart enough to read the sign of the times?

Companies that don’t realize their markets are now networked person-to-person, getting smarter as a result and deeply joined in conversation are missing their best opportunity.
The Cluetrain Manifesto, 1999


Microsoft (red) vs. YouTube (blue): Democracy takes over.
(Source: Alexa)

Example1: Facebook

Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg has made the experience before; he now certainly knows that Facebook users own Facebook. Those high profile users and their data are Facebook’s capital. It is not the code. In consequence, if Facebook gets sold for one or two or eight billion Dollars, every Facebook user should get a share – depending on their contribution. Of course Mark’s individual share would be still much higher than everybody else’s, as his personal contribution is the highest.

Imagine how many users they would attract with a democratic profit sharing model – it would explode. Imagine, the marketing power of such a model. And it wouldn’t be crazy, it would be consistent not just with Mark’s biography, it would go hand in hand with with everything else that is happening lately:

democracy trend.gif

Number of nations 1800-2003 scoring 8 or higher on Polity IV scale, another widely used measure of democracy. (Source: Wikipedia)

Imagine Facebook’s code becomes opensource. Imagine: Millions of high profile users would trust you with their credit card number; after all you need their credit card number to pay them.

Of course, before selling it you would create a user council with elected Facebook representatives, elected by the Facebook user base that decides where Facebook goes and – whether Facebook gets sold or not. They might decide to close it again, take out the RSS feeds, or maybe they don’t; but they’d probably take the right decision in the end, because as a collective they’re smarter than any individual – as long as they choose representatives and are not allowed to decide as individuals over the collective.
 var infolink_pid = 63535; var infolink_wsid = 0;

If Mark Zuckerberg were that courageous, imagine how much money he’d make as a president of a website with twenty million high profile users willing to share their credit card number? So much that selling it would seem ridiculous.

Example 2: Microsoft

Her majesty 14 Billion USD Steve Ballmer probably still believes that as a CEO he owns Microsoft, and if he does, he’s 99.999% wrong. Microsoft customers own 99.999% of what Microsoft is; and that is – software. It’s simple: You bought it, you own it. He might be able to brainwash his kids…

I’ve got my kids brainwashed: You don’t use Google, and you don’t use an iPod. Source: Wikipedia

…fortunately we are still able to judge and allowed to choose by ourselves. That sticker that says Microsoft XP there on your machine doesn’t state that Microsoft owns your computer, it states that you own a piece of Microsoft. And, if you ask me, it suggests that the collective of Microsoft buyers are the overall Microsoft owners. I know that in reality they act like it’s the other way round but fact is: The brand doesn’t own you. You own the brand. Not convinced? Prefer to stay a slave? Then let me put it this way:

No matter how much he loves his company, Steve Ballmer is not (supposed to be) the King of Microsoft, as a CEO he is supposed to act as a governing president, and as such he is supposed to act in the best interest of his citizens, the Microsoft customers. If Microsoft were a democratic company, it would let its users decide on the product, decide on the representatives, decide on the president. Think that’s crazy? No it’s democratic. And obviously the crazy one is Ballmer, the notorious president of Microsoft:

Corporations as multinational states?

After all, corporations owe their commercial success to democracy and the democratic concept of a free market. Without a free market they would not have been able to grow that much and become so popular.

Unfortunately many corporations have become states in states; in many parts of the world, absolutist multinationals gained more power that the democratic states in which they operate. Some even claimed they own the rain of a country.

The current concept of corporations as legal persons is not just obsolete, it’s absurd. If ever, international corporations should be treated under international law as political entities, i.e. states. As a consumer I say: If companies have political aspirations to become multinational states, they should first adapt to established political rules they profit from and become democratic. Get out of the middle ages:

Democracy (literally “rule by the people”, from the Greek δημοκρατία-demokratia demos, “people,” and kratos, “rule”) is a form of government in which the political power is held by the people. […] While the term democracy is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to other bodies, such as universities, labor unions, public companies, or civic organizations.

The consumers, being citizens of those multinationals, already start demanding their rights. With the Internet the consumers have achieved the right to speak, and recently we demand the right to vote. And if you think that’s obnoxious think again: Who pays the companies? So: Who owns them?
 var infolink_pid = 63535; var infolink_wsid = 0;

Another question. If you look at the states considered democratic and try spot the headquarters of international corporations within those states, what happens? Why on earth are corporations, born in democracies and grown through the power of the free market not democratically governed?


This map reflects the findings of Freedom House’s survey Freedom in the World 2006, which reports the state of world freedom in 2005. It is one of the most widely used measures of democracy. Green: Free. Rose: Partly Free Red: Not Free (Source: Wikipedia)

There is no such thing as too much democracy

In a democracy the people own the state. And that is good. Most companies (and unfortunately many politicians) don’t understand this. They are afraid of “too much democracy”. There is no such thing as too much democracy. The fear of too much democracy comes from political ignorance. CEO’s all too often don’t know what democracy really is.

What about anarchy?

Democracy is based on the idea that an intelligent collective will always make a better decision that an intelligent individual. But the collective has to be organized. Democracy doesn’t mean that the individual decides. Decision making has to follow collective rules. Randomness is not a democratic tendency it’s actually what we are reigned by right now:

Fucking Eric Schmidt is a fucking pussy. I’m going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I’m going to fucking kill Google.
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer on Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt (Wikipedia)

Why is a healthy democracy the best form of government? Because collective intelligence ultimately works in favor of the collective and thus at the same time has a strong corrective towards individual mistakes. I guess that explains why the Americans voted for Bush and now vote against him. Bush stood for the profit of the American collective against the rest of the world and now, in a time of multinational states – stands for massive individual mistakes. So will Steve Ballmer.

That democratic rules apply to multinational corporations is even more obvious if you look at the mass of people they need to serve. Customers don’t care about macho talk. If shouting and jumping and public obscenity is what he offers, Microsoft is going down. Not because of the shouting and jumping or the obscenity. Because of what it stands for. We don’t like to be dictated and shouted at, we like to talk and choose.

You need representatives

The mere collective as such obviously cannot take decisions. The collective has to elect representatives. This is where the many forms of democracies differ and are similar at the same time. There are many ways to elect those representatives and there are many ways to empower them, but the common denominator of all democracies is that there are representatives. Now imagine, customers elect their representatives and those representatives elect their leader. Crazy? No, democratic. Given the political power corporations have nowadays it’s more than fair to apply democratic rules to choose the people in power.

Dangerous idea? I don’t think so. If the customer and not the stakeholders elect the president, what do you think happens to the product? It gets better and better. And what happens to good products? They are bought. And what is the basic job of the CEO of Nike, Pfizer, Microsoft? He needs to make good products that sell. Yes, basically, it’s simple.

Okay, that might be true in theory but in practice…

In general, there is no such thing as good theory that fails in practice. There is only good (verifiable) theory and bad (unverifiable) theory.
 var infolink_pid = 63535; var infolink_wsid = 0;

Of course there are bad (criminal) practices that contradict the theory of a good (legal) practice. But the existence of criminals does not contradict the reason of law, it constitutes it. That democracy fails at times doesn’t mean it’s wrong. As long as there is no better form of government it’s the best. Now why should this form of government not apply to companies?

Churchill’s ironic saying that “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried” applies to political states as well as to multinationals. And the new economy proves it. The most recent success stories of websites like MySpaceYouTubeFlickr are all success stories of democratic models defeating hierarchical models.


Slashdot is famous for it’s high quality content and the usually high level of discussion. Why is that? Because the citizens of Slashdot have a democratic way in valuing each others contributions. Comments of long time quality users of Slashdot get more weight. They become representatives of the collective. The most recent redesign of Slashdot was set up as a competition among Slashdot users (iA tried to compete – unfortunately without success).


Digg is a mere democratic phenomenon. Users vote for good content. Apparently there are ways for spammers to abuse Digg. Digg’s answer so far is not really convincing: They put an algorithm in place to avoid spamming. Much more efficient and in the spirit of Digg: Start electing representatives that watch over the quality.


Another democratic media shooting star. Reddit users can vote on links posted, on users and on comments. They can vote up, down or neutral. Popular users gain karma (and thus representative weight), popular links gain exposure, comments gain weight in the discussion and karma points for the users. The Reddit backend tracks people to not use several profiles to push their stuff. Reddit connects different profiles and identifies them as one based on a number of factors that make different profile identifiable. It is almost impossible to trick.


Delicious tracks how many users bookmark a link. In order to avoid spamming they built a time delay system. While it’s possible to get on the Digg homepage through some instantaneous mass hysteric voting, Delicious builds on slow growth, making it a more serious bookmark directory than Digg which is more sensational and fun.


D-Zone is democratic link sharing site for developers. Its success stems from a very alert and at the same time friendly group of moderators that are not afraid to integrate active quality users into their moderating team.


Companies that learn from the recent success of democratic websites will not just be able to cut cost on market research, branding, advertising and R&D, they will ultimately make quality products that sell better and market themselves.
 var infolink_pid = 63535; var infolink_wsid = 0;

The democratization of the economy is not just a fair development; given, that the currently often tyrannical corporate structures owe their success to the free market, it is a development that will enhance companies in the same ways political democracy enhanced the political quality of states. It is a movement that is based on high communicational sophistication, the readiness to interact and the reasonability of the collective to elect representatives. All these factors seem to be a given if you look how successful democratic web projects are.

People love to interact, people love to discuss, people love to vote, people love to deal, people love to buy. Hopefully the most recent development on the web is the end of the couch potato as we know it.

iA is currently not just redesigning all of our customers websites to meet the E2R readability standard, we are also in the process of convincing all of our clients to leave the control over their websites not to us, and not their web department, but to their customers. As long as you make good products, there is no need to be afraid of that. And as long as you listen to your customers you will make good products.

The democratization of business is an irreversible movement. You can join it now and be one of the first, or you can join in later and be the third. What do you think, Mark?
Courtesy by:


Web 3.0: You Say You’re on an Revolution?

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 codingdesign (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

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, imagine an interactive, imagine a democratic 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


In a recent article on the latest hype entitled http://www.thenewrevolutionaries TheGuardian picks the following examples as the upcoming shooting stars:

The new MySpace is … The new YouTube is … The new iTunes is … The new Google is … The new Craigslist is …

It’s no surprise that they all focus on collective intelligence, interactivity and simplicity on the front end.

Better Example ; )

iA recently redesigned 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] and I’ll send you an invitation to my network.

Have a nice day


Courtesy by:

Web 3.0 = (4C + P + VS) + Place

Yes, we need to add a new variable to the definition of Web 3.0, and that variable isPlace.


You are on a business trip in New York, and you need to buy a gift for your 13 year old son. You need a Size 8 Nike Air Zoom, and you have exactly 30 minutes before you need to zoom out of Manhattan towards JFK, to catch the flight back home.

Today, you have no way of knowing which store closest to you would have in their inventory a Size 8 Nike Air Zoom.

But in the web’s perhaps not too distant future, you can presumably look it up online.

Indeed, as Cal McElroy has put it, It’s About Place.

Place, here, encompasses location. Where ‘you’ are, via GPS technology. Where ‘things’ and ‘places’ are ‘near’ you. Via GIS technology.

You may be at a beach resort in Santorini, and want to know what’s the best spot to catch a beautiful sunset. You may be in Rome looking for a great family run Trattoria near Piazza Parlamento, where politicians, you’ve heard, often gather for meals. Or, you may be looking for a new home or a new job, and need to map out the amenities (Grocery Store, Dry Cleaning, Gym, Restaurants, Nail Salon, Hair-dresser, …) in the neighborhood.

In other words, if you take each Context we have discussed, and explore its “Place” dimension, you will find a set of open problems emerging. The solutions to these problems need to become a part of the new web, so I propose to include it in my Web 3.0 definition, which therefore, becomes:

Web 3.0 = (4C + P + VS)Place

Related companies: NavteqTomTom, TeleAtlasGarmin. You may also want to look up a company called Local.comLocal is also a big part of IAC’s strategy.

Courtesy by:

Web 3.0 & the Semantic Web

My definition of Web 3.0 is one of the most popular entry points into this blog. In it, I proposed the vision of a web which becomes increasingly verticalized by “Context”, and the relevant Content, Community and Commerce elements are successfully mashed up “in Context”. I also proposed 2 other elements: Vertical / Contextual Search, and Personalization. Thus, I concluded, Web 3.0 = (4C + P + VS).

I got both extremes of reactions to this formula. But I also got some good questions and observations, which, after several months of discussions, warrant a follow-on synthesis post.

One question is about Tim Berner’s Lee’s Semantic Web definition and how it correlates with my vision. Tim Berners-Lee originally expressed the vision of the semantic web as follows: “I have a dream for the Web [in which computers] become capable of analyzing all the data on the Web – the content, links, and transactions between people and computers. A ‘Semantic Web’, which should make this possible, has yet to emerge, but when it does, the day-to-day mechanisms of trade, bureaucracy and our daily lives will be handled by machines talking to machines. The ‘intelligent agents’ people have touted for ages will finally materialize.” [Wikipedia]

Well, yes, my vision is similar. Except, while Tim is an academic, and thinks in terms of new technology, I am an entrepreneur, and I think in terms of execution and viable, sustainable business models, not just technology.

So, let me now provide the bridge between Tim’s thoughts and mine.

You see, I grew up in India, with a household full of servants. However politically incorrect it may be to say so, I thoroughly enjoyed the lifestyle of being able to delegate tedious tasks to these servants. Thus, in the future that I envision, I would very much like to see Intelligent Agent “Servants” taking care of lots of my repetitive tasks.

Now, I happen to have worked on AI algorithms a fair bit, over the years, and can assure you, that for Agent technology to work, you would need to constrain the domain of its activity. Intelligent Agents would never be successful in providing value if let loose in an unconstrained environment. Thus, it needs “Context”.

A “Travel Agent” is not the same as a “Personal Shopper Agent” or a “Personal Financial Advisor Agent” or a “Real Estate Agent”. All those agents are entirely possible, if you design them in the context of the vocabulary (Semantics) of the vertical domain. Unconstrained, and without context, they fail. Thus, the Semantic Web can only be implemented in a Contextual Domain.

And within each Contextual Domain, you would find a sustainable business model that includes Advertising and eCommerce revenues, indicating that the future of the Web, Web 3.0 as we are trying to call it, is a Verticalized, Contextualized, Personalized Web.

Courtesy by:

What Would Web 3.0 Look Like?

web 3.0The hottest topic for all geeks around the globe is just talking about technology. They are always excited in their own persona. When it comes to Web 3.0, experts have distributed predictions for its structure.

Today I am going to present my image of Web 3.0 which is entirely dependent on technical updates from magazines and Videocasts and Podcasts.

  • Personal Desktop:
    firefox ie delicious opera
    You know what? You have tasted this feature! Opera, Google Chrome ,, Firefox, which offers you to save your bookmarks and tags independent of browser. It offers space for personal browser data or other private data any where in this world where you want it. You just need to login to your account at the same browser.

Remote Control:
remote control
Yes you can control your PC from distance about thousand miles or even more by just using internet. It is just like Windows Remote desktop control. There will be much more services like Logmein in Web 3.0 which will offer remote control of your computer for free.

One step ahead of these, there are websites like 4shared, which is part of Webspaces. It offers you virtual directory of 5GB space which can be increased to multiple times by adopting some money based membership plans. Also it offers access to other member’s directories if they have made them public.

As there is 4G ready to knock your door, Internet is not just limited to computers but to your mobiles , portable audio/video players , navigators and very new other devices like PDF readers. 4G means bigger bandwidth so now there is no limit of functionality for 4G devices. It is said that some 4G devices are being tested for GigaBytes of bandwidth.

Semantic Web:
semantic web
I have read a post on Precise search but Semantic Web Technologyis going to change your search results. Semantic Web is based on some very new web standard like RDF which can be very purposefully analyzed by Web spiders or search engines to refine your queries. Semantic Web is one of the hottest contemporary topic. There are many researchers doing analysis on data mining to better organize and allocate data.

So it wouldn’t be astonishing if you make query like this in future: “Give me best website for online gift buying shops and then tell me the most suitable location around California to go for trekking.” How it is possible? Let me tell you how! Very new sophisticated formats of semantic web like RDF divides query into subjects, predicates and objects which are analyzed and processed by very smart web sources.

Smarter Hardware:
smarter hardware
Our hardware is getting smarter. Intel has come with Core i7 and AMDhas announced Shanghai project in Opteron series. In monitorsOLED(Organic LED) is future with next to real picture quality. NewPHYX cards for graphics. Virtual reality is something which would be part of not only gaming and research simulation but also for training purposes.

Surface PC:
surface pc
With Bill Gate’s new ambition of having every desktop as PC retail is now directly connected to Web. You will be provided with smart cards which will contain your personal settings and informationcapable of loading any where, on street shops having Surface PC.You can Plug and Play, wire free with your fingers only.

Internet Radio:
internet radio
This will be the audio streaming major in Web 3.0 with having digital quality sound and playing thousands of radio stations.

There are innumerable number of features that is going to be embedded in Web 3.0. But some of them be speculative too.
I guess I have acquainted you with .1 % of what Web 3.0 will have.

Courtesy by:

Web 3.0 = (4C + P + VS)

I have written a few pieces already addressing the disjointed nature of the web, whereby, you go one place for content, another for community, and a third for commerce, the most notable of these is the popular, 4C: Yahoo’s Turnaround Formula.

Let’s quickly recap the terminology:

3C = Content, Commerce, Community |
4th C = Context |
P = Personalization |
VS = Vertical Search

This, I submit, is the formula for the future: Web 3.0 = (4C + P + VS).

Web 2.0 has been a nichy phenomenon with hundred and thousands of microcap efforts addressing one of the Cs, lately, Community being the most popular force, producing companies like MySpaceFacebookPiczoXanga, and Flixster.

In Web 1.0, Commerce had been the driving force, that produced companies likeNetflixBlueNileAmazon, and eBAY. It had also resulted in the Dotcom meltdown.

The same period that is seeing the surge of Web 2.0, has also seen a great deal of investment in Vertical Search, like Sidestep for Travel.

Personalization has remained limited to some unsatisfactory efforts by the MyYahoo team, their primary disadvantage being the lack of a starting Context. More recently,Netvibes
has raised a lot of buzz, but also lacks the same organizing principle: Context.

In Web 3.0, I predict, we are going to start seeing roll-ups. We will see a trunk that emerges from the Context, be it film (Netflix), music (iTunes), cooking / food, working women, single parents, … and assembles the Web 3.0 formula that addresses the whole set of needs of a consumer in that Context.


-I am a petite woman, dark skinned, dark haired, brown eyed. I have a distinct personal style, and only certain designers resonate with it (Context).

-I want my personal SAKS Fifth Avenue which carries clothes by those designers, in my size (Commerce).

-I want my personal Vogue, which covers articles about that Style, those Designers, and other emerging ones like them (Content).

-I want to exchange notes with others of my size-shape-style-psychographic and discover what else looks good. I also want the recommendation system tell me what they’re buying (Community).

-There’s also some basic principles of what looks good based on skin tone, body shape, hair color, eye color … I want the search engine to be able to filter and match based on an algorithm that builds in this knowledge base (Personalization, Vertical Search).

Now, imagine the same for a short, fat man, who doesn’t really have a sense of what to wear. And he doesn’t have a wife or a girl-friend. Before Web 3.0, he could go to the personal shopper at Nordstrom.

With Web 3.0, the internet will be his Personal Shopper.

Courtesy by: