<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[Scobleizer]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://scobleizer.blog]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Robert Scoble]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://scobleizer.blog/author/scobleizer/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Zawodny trying to define Web&nbsp;2.0]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>Jeremy Zawodny, Esther Dyson, Mike Arrington, and me are on a panel this week talking about Web 2.0. I guess Charles River Venture partners didn&#8217;t get the memo that I&#8217;m irrelevant to Web 2.0. Whatever that means.</p>
<p>Which leads me to Jeremy&#8217;s post. <a href="http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/008961.html">He&#8217;s trying to define what Web 2.0 means</a>.</p>
<p>To me?</p>
<p>Web 1.0 was about pages. URLs.<br />
Web 2.0 was about users. Adding them onto corporate pages. Wikis. Blogs. Myspaces.<br />
Web 3.0 is about getting rid of pages altogether. Being able to make the Web YOU want or need. Is Twitter a page? Or a post? Or an SMS? <a href="http://twitterment.umbc.edu/compare.jsp?query1=scoble&amp;query2=calacanis">A graph</a>? Or <a href="http://www.twittervision.com">a map display</a>?</p>
<p>But, maybe this is just undefinable. Which means panel discussions about it are always interesting. Or should be, especially when you have an irrelevant asshat on the panel like me. 🙂</p>
]]></html></oembed>