[iamwil]

It's an interesting comparison between the difference between 2.0/1.0 and 3.0/2.0, but the author gives no support as to why he thinks it's education/creation for 3.0 in the future.

Do you think he's spot on, and know any reasons for or against it?

[brianfrank]

Granted. My case isn't very concrete. I'm going by the very general principle that if something isn't growing -- making new connections, adapting, and creating -- then entropy starts to happen.

I don't think the web can grow much more complex without it outgrowing our ability (as both users and providers) to use it effectively -- at least not to its full potential. Therefore growth will probably have to be balanced by growth in our intuitive knowledge and competencies: education.

[iamwil]

Can you give some concrete examples please?

To me, it seems that the average user has to know less and less about the underlying web in order to use it to do things. Perhaps you're talking about people that build tools on the web?

[brianfrank]

Never mind my last comment.

I should've just said "Second Life." Those users -- at least the ones who stick around -- invest alot of capital (cultural, emotional, financial, etc).

I don't know if Second Life will be the company that gets the next wave right, but I think we should look at what they (and their users) are doing, to see who'll be the big winners in 5 to 10 years.

Here's a fairly recent post on GigaOM about it: http://gigaom.com/2007/09/26/7-reasons-why-second-life-shoul...

...and then there's the story posted by pg about declining use of wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysi... ... and my comment on there: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=66946

[brianfrank]

Sorry, I know it's pretty fuzzy. I don't know if there are any examples until something starts going wrong (IF something starts going wrong).

You make a good point about the average user needing to know less and less. Which is great, I hope that continues -- and I'm sure it will...

But that also means that users may not be developing any kind of knowledge capital or competence -- unlike the people who build tools.

Developers don't just build tools; they also build their own knowledge and skills at the same time. And their knowledge and skills are specifically 'invested in' (or to use another metaphor, 'married to') those tools, platforms, and applications that they develop. The fact that developers have invested so many years learning to master PHP, Ruby, etc, makes those tools even more valuable -- it makes it less likely for developers to leave them behind.

Whereas the value of web sites and applications to users doesn't necessarily follow the same curve. The fact that it's becoming easier to use means they don't have to make any kind of an investment -- maybe it's just something they do to avoid doing work. After two or three years of using MySpace, how much value, equity, or affinity has been created between MySpace and the user?

My example in the essay was that right now MySpace is doing pretty well, but its value is more in the people using it than the site itself; if users start spending less time there and go somewhere else, like Facebook, they might merely follow each other.

The question to ask is, What would users be leaving behind if they left? What might they follow?

Here's a concrete example: retail rewards cards. (But I think web users are as easily fooled by those kinds of schemes.)

Obviously this is a work in progress. Thanks for pushing me to develop my case.