Webmaster forum - The next new thing on the web?

Author

The next new thing on the web?

veg_all@yahoo.com

2007-04-24, 6:19 pm

I have been using the web since 1994 and have noticed the following
evolution trend:

Pre 1990's - Text dominated web
1990-1995 - Pictures added
1995-2000 - Audio added
2000-2010 - Video added
2010+ - ?????

Now that we have text, pictures, audio and video, what more is there
to the web? I think we are at the end of what the web can promise.
Now things will just get more standardized and stable over the next
10-30 years.

John

2007-04-24, 6:19 pm

>I have been using the web since 1994 and have noticed the following
> evolution trend:
>
> Pre 1990's - Text dominated web
> 1990-1995 - Pictures added
> 1995-2000 - Audio added
> 2000-2010 - Video added
> 2010+ - ?????
>
> Now that we have text, pictures, audio and video, what more is there
> to the web? I think we are at the end of what the web can promise.
> Now things will just get more standardized and stable over the next
> 10-30 years.
>
Oh I can think of a lot of things if my home was hooked up to a computer and
had video cams that I can look around the house when I'm gone at work. I
could have it let the dog out, check and see if I turned the stove off and
if I didn't it would. I don't always get off at the same time so I could
have the heat or ac come on as I'm heading home. Did I lock the door? Who
cares I just click the lock icon. Wouldn't it be nice if you could turn off
the automatic sprinkler system if it started raining. Have you ever forgot
to record a program you wanted to watch? Yep it could even check and make
sure you have everything you need for dinner tonight.
With you saying 30 years from now I can see all this and a lot more.

Jerry Stuckle

2007-04-24, 6:19 pm

Nathan In Montana

2007-04-24, 6:19 pm

<veg_all@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177445958.523321.187260@n35g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>I have been using the web since 1994 and have noticed the following
> evolution trend:
>
> Pre 1990's - Text dominated web
> 1990-1995 - Pictures added
> 1995-2000 - Audio added
> 2000-2010 - Video added
> 2010+ - ?????
>
> Now that we have text, pictures, audio and video, what more is there
> to the web? I think we are at the end of what the web can promise.

we are nowhere near reaching the full potential of the web. as broadband
speeds get higher and higher, so will content. i expect virtual reality
next. :-)

--
Nathan in Montana
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
http://1911Talk.com
http://GlockCarry.com

mbstevens

2007-04-24, 10:17 pm

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:19:18 -0700, veg_all wrote:

> Now that we have text, pictures, audio and video, what more is there
> to the web? I think we are at the end of what the web can promise.
> Now things will just get more standardized and stable over the next
> 10-30 years.

Silly vegetable, you're forgetting full-on virtual reality as
depicted way back in the early 80s in Gibson's novels, long
before a real web actually existed, including feedback for all the senses.
Gamers already have tactile feedback, which will easily spread more to the
web, and then there is teledildonics, which has been around in rudimentary
form many years. I don't know if we're in for a new golden age, but we
are certainly in for a bloody, itchy, smelly, squishy one.

David J. Hennessy

2007-04-24, 10:17 pm

Chris F.A. Johnson

2007-04-24, 10:17 pm

On 2007-04-24, veg_all@yahoo.com wrote:
> I have been using the web since 1994 and have noticed the following
> evolution trend:
>
> Pre 1990's - Text dominated web

Pre 1990s there was no Web.

> 1990-1995 - Pictures added
> 1995-2000 - Audio added
> 2000-2010 - Video added
> 2010+ - ?????
>
> Now that we have text, pictures, audio and video, what more is there
> to the web? I think we are at the end of what the web can promise.

1452, the first book was printed. Had they come to the end of
what books can promise?

> Now things will just get more standardized and stable over the next
> 10-30 years.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
========= Do not reply to the From: address; use Reply-To: ========
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

freemont

2007-04-24, 10:17 pm

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:19:18 -0700, veg_all writ:

> I have been using the web since 1994 and have noticed the following
> evolution trend:
>
> Pre 1990's - Text dominated web
> 1990-1995 - Pictures added
> 1995-2000 - Audio added
> 2000-2010 - Video added
> 2010+ - ?????
>
> Now that we have text, pictures, audio and video, what more is there
> to the web? I think we are at the end of what the web can promise.
> Now things will just get more standardized and stable over the next
> 10-30 years.

Scratch 'N Sniff?

--
"Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·..·¯`·-> freemont© <-·¯`·..·¯

Alfred Molon

2007-04-25, 6:18 pm

In article <1177445958.523321.187260@n35g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
veg_all@yahoo.com says...
> I have been using the web since 1994 and have noticed the following
> evolution trend:
>
> Pre 1990's - Text dominated web
> 1990-1995 - Pictures added
> 1995-2000 - Audio added
> 2000-2010 - Video added
> 2010+ - ?????

Perhaps the intelligent web? An artifical intelligence in the web, which
takes over the world...
--

Alfred Molon
http://www.molon.de - Photos of Asia, Africa and Europe

Kris

2007-04-25, 6:18 pm

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:09:06 -0600, "Nathan In Montana"
<MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote:

> <veg_all@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1177445958.523321.187260@n35g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> we are nowhere near reaching the full potential of the web. as broadband
> speeds get higher and higher, so will content. i expect virtual reality
> next. :-)

While it might be true that broadband speeds are getting higher, is
the actual availability of broadband increasing significantly?

I don't have the actual figures in front of me, but in the past month
I read that approximately 1/3 of Americans don't have either a
computer or internet access. The last statistic I saw on broadband
access was about 10%. And yet it is this small percentage of people
that more and more websites are designed for.

Yes, this is an issue near and dear to my heart, since I am lucky to
have a telephone out here at all, and my connection never exceeds 26K
-- and I don't wait more than two minutes for a website to load. :-)

Mark Goodge

2007-04-25, 6:18 pm

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:54:42 -0600, Kris put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:09:06 -0600, "Nathan In Montana"
><MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>While it might be true that broadband speeds are getting higher, is
>the actual availability of broadband increasing significantly?

Yes. By the end of 2006, approximately 77% of global users were on
broadband.

>I don't have the actual figures in front of me, but in the past month
>I read that approximately 1/3 of Americans don't have either a
>computer or internet access.

The US is actually lagging behind on broadband rollout, compared to
most of Europe and Asia. The US currently has around 66% on broadband,
which leaves plenty of room for growth.

Mark
--
Visit: http://www.CorporateContact.info - phone and email contacts for Amazon, Paypal, eBay and lots of other hard-to-contact organisations
"You gotta live with your dreams, don't make them so hard"

Karl Groves

2007-04-25, 6:18 pm

Alfred Molon <alfred_molonCANCEL@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.2099972210beeb7698b427@news.supernews.com:

> In article <1177445958.523321.187260@n35g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> veg_all@yahoo.com says...
>
> Perhaps the intelligent web? An artifical intelligence in the web, which
> takes over the world...

I keep telling everyone that Google is Skynet. Larry Page even confirmed
they're working on AI: http://news.com.com/2100-11395_3-6160372.html

--
Karl Groves
http://www.thehotrodclassifieds.com
http://www.grayscalecms.com
http://www.karlcore.com

Nathan In Montana

2007-04-25, 10:16 pm

"Kris" <kris@is.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:no8v23lhd2kpcuueo1ks4tmdksljqahe0m@4ax.com...
> While it might be true that broadband speeds are getting higher, is
> the actual availability of broadband increasing significantly?

im not sure of the numbers, but im betting yours are way off. once upon a
time access to electricity was scarce. once upon a time access to a
telephone line was scarce. this is no different and as we become more and
more dependant upon the internet access will only get better. to ever
assume that anything as important as the internet has reached its full
potential is completely wrong. evolution is our nature and it can only get
better.

--
Nathan in Montana
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
http://1911Talk.com
http://GlockCarry.com

Kris

2007-04-26, 3:24 am

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:11:41 +0100, Mark Goodge
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:54:42 -0600, Kris put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>
> Yes. By the end of 2006, approximately 77% of global users were on
> broadband.
>
>
> The US is actually lagging behind on broadband rollout, compared to
> most of Europe and Asia. The US currently has around 66% on broadband,
> which leaves plenty of room for growth.

Is that 66% of the population or 66% of internet users -- and can you
point me to the statistics?

I admit I'm out in the sticks -- I just got electricity out here about
five years ago and I'm lucky to have a phone at all. I *could* have
high speed access if I were to shell out the money for satellite --
but that cost is outrageous. I don't envision that cable will be
available here *ever* and certainly not DSL. Heck, we only have one
internet service provider that actually has a local access number
available.

I know I just read about the people who have no computer -- and aren't
interested in having one -- within the last few weeks. Maybe it was
on Slashdot.

veg_all@yahoo.com

2007-04-26, 3:24 am

On Apr 24, 5:11 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:

> Before the 1990's there wasn't a web. Just the internet.
>

what's the differenece? for most people the two words are synonymous.

veg_all@yahoo.com

2007-04-26, 3:24 am

On Apr 24, 5:09 pm, "Nathan In Montana" <MontanaJee...@aol.com> wrote:

> we are nowhere near reaching the full potential of the web. as broadband
> speeds get higher and higher, so will content. i expect virtual reality
> next. :-)

what is virtual reality? Isn't a high quality webcam and headset
sufficient or are we talking about something completely different?

veg_all@yahoo.com

2007-04-26, 3:24 am

On Apr 24, 4:04 pm, "John" <jpl...@swbell.net> wrote:

> Oh I can think of a lot of things if my home was hooked up to a computer and
> had video cams that I can look around the house when I'm gone at work. I
> could have it let the dog out, check and see if I turned the stove off and
> if I didn't it would. I don't always get off at the same time so I could
> have the heat or ac come on as I'm heading home. Did I lock the door? Who

I was thinking about that too, something like wireless robots that
work off something attached to your usb port. Then these robots can be
controlled from the web. I am sure something like this already exists
or not?

Jerry Stuckle

2007-04-26, 3:24 am

veg_all@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Apr 24, 5:11 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
> what's the differenece? for most people the two words are synonymous.
>

Not at all. They are two entirely different things.

The Internet is the backbone. The web is the HTTP(S) protocol access to
servers on the internet.

Before the WWW there was telnet, ssh, ftp, email, gopher, finger and a
host of other protocols.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Jerry Stuckle

2007-04-26, 3:24 am

veg_all@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Apr 24, 5:09 pm, "Nathan In Montana" <MontanaJee...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> what is virtual reality? Isn't a high quality webcam and headset
> sufficient or are we talking about something completely different?
>

VR is much more complex. It interacts with the user - for instance, if
you're wearing a helmet and turn your head, the scenery you see changes.

High end VR also includes audio and tactile interfaces.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Mark Goodge

2007-04-26, 3:24 am

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:46:34 -0600, Kris put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:11:41 +0100, Mark Goodge
><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Is that 66% of the population or 66% of internet users -- and can you
>point me to the statistics?

Internet users. There are various sources of stats, but the one I
quoted is at http://dhdeans.blogspot.com/search/label/broadband

>I admit I'm out in the sticks -- I just got electricity out here about
>five years ago and I'm lucky to have a phone at all. I *could* have
>high speed access if I were to shell out the money for satellite --
>but that cost is outrageous. I don't envision that cable will be
>available here *ever* and certainly not DSL. Heck, we only have one
>internet service provider that actually has a local access number
>available.

If you can get a landline phone at all, then you have the potential to
have DSL. All you're waiting for is for your phone company to enable
it at the exchange. Unlike cable, DSL doesn't rely on the ISP putting
in any infrastructure - the telco does that, and then resells it to
the ISP.

Theoretically, DSL has the pretty much same reach as the phone
network, provided that all the exchanges are DSL-enabled. There are
still some issues with customers who are a long distance from the
exchange, but DSL technology is improving and people who were out of
reach a year or so ago can now get reasonable broadband speeds.
Eventually, it should be possible to get DSL on any fixed telephone
line, no matter how far from the exchange - if the signal will carry
voice, it will carry data.

What holds that up is that the telco may not feel that there is
sufficient demand for DSL yet in your locality for it to be
financially worthwhile upgrading the exchange. But, again, this is
just a matter of time - eventually, DSL will become part of the
standard provision.

>I know I just read about the people who have no computer -- and aren't
>interested in having one -- within the last few weeks. Maybe it was
>on Slashdot.

There are people with no computer, just as there are people with no
telephone, no television, no freezer or no car. No technology ever
achieves 100% penetration; there will always be some people who aren't
interested in it.

Mark
--
Please give me one! http://www.pleasegivemeone.com
"Life is bigger, it's bigger than you"

CJM

2007-04-26, 6:16 am

"David J. Hennessy" <david@maidix.com> wrote in message
news:ckwXh.1505$Wa.149@trnddc08...

>
> Sadly, probably "censorship added," if the disturbing trends in China and
> the US continue.
>

Yep, censorship and regulation.

CJM

2007-04-26, 6:16 am

"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molonCANCEL@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2099972210beeb7698b427@news.supernews.com...
>
> Perhaps the intelligent web?

Now that's the most ridiculous and far-fetched suggestion yet. I can assure
you there will never be intelligence on the web, and especially not in
A.W.W.

>An artifical intelligence in the web, which
> takes over the world...

Oh, I see what you mean. Now this is a real possibilty. It will start as
crime-prevention spider/crawler designed to find people who are trading in
obscene materials/not paying enough tax, but will quickly realise that it's
job would be simpler if the human race was extinguished.

Don't worry though, most regular members of A.W.W. can probably get a
discounted foil helmet. Nevertheless, I think we should get Linda Hamilton
on-board just in case.

CJM

CJM

2007-04-26, 6:19 pm

"Karl Groves" <karl@NOSPAMkarlcore.com> wrote in message
news:Xns991DA2C9B1D82karlkarlcorecom@199.45.49.11...
>
> I keep telling everyone that Google is Skynet. Larry Page even confirmed
> they're working on AI: http://news.com.com/2100-11395_3-6160372.html
>

Blimey! I hadn't read your post before I responded, but it seems that there
is some truth to what 'the voices' have been telling me...

Jerry Stuckle

2007-04-26, 6:19 pm

Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:46:34 -0600, Kris put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>
> Internet users. There are various sources of stats, but the one I
> quoted is at http://dhdeans.blogspot.com/search/label/broadband
>
>
> If you can get a landline phone at all, then you have the potential to
> have DSL. All you're waiting for is for your phone company to enable
> it at the exchange. Unlike cable, DSL doesn't rely on the ISP putting
> in any infrastructure - the telco does that, and then resells it to
> the ISP.
>

Not necessarily, Mark. DSL has distance limits. For instance, I'm over
13K feet from my local office. The phone company won't provide a DSL
line because I'm over 10K feet. Interestingly enough, some other
companies claim they can do it over the same lines - but they won't even
guarantee 128K bps.

> Theoretically, DSL has the pretty much same reach as the phone
> network, provided that all the exchanges are DSL-enabled. There are
> still some issues with customers who are a long distance from the
> exchange, but DSL technology is improving and people who were out of
> reach a year or so ago can now get reasonable broadband speeds.
> Eventually, it should be possible to get DSL on any fixed telephone
> line, no matter how far from the exchange - if the signal will carry
> voice, it will carry data.
>

No, DSL uses higher frequencies, and therefore suffers from higher
attenuations at the same distance. And yes, the technology is
improving, but so far it hasn't violated the laws of physics. :-)

> What holds that up is that the telco may not feel that there is
> sufficient demand for DSL yet in your locality for it to be
> financially worthwhile upgrading the exchange. But, again, this is
> just a matter of time - eventually, DSL will become part of the
> standard provision.
>

The demand was here - for years. In fact, the demand is so high they've
rolled out fiber in our area. I can get fiber now - but still can't get
DSL (not that I would want it now :-) ).

>
> There are people with no computer, just as there are people with no
> telephone, no television, no freezer or no car. No technology ever
> achieves 100% penetration; there will always be some people who aren't
> interested in it.
>
> Mark

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Andy Dingley

2007-04-26, 6:19 pm

On 26 Apr, 04:10, veg_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Apr 24, 5:11 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
> what's the differenece? for most people the two words are synonymous.

Teh Intawebs
The world-wide-web, instant mess and file-sharing

The Internerd
All the other stuff.

Thankyou for posting to Google Groups, the world-wide chatroomboards.

Kris

2007-04-26, 6:19 pm

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:03:21 +0100, Mark Goodge
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:46:34 -0600, Kris put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
[color=darkred]
>
> Internet users. There are various sources of stats, but the one I
> quoted is at http://dhdeans.blogspot.com/search/label/broadband

I checked this link and two things jumped out at me:

"At the end of 2006, it is estimated that over three-quarters (77
percent) of the global online population was utilizing a broadband
connection to access the Internet, in comparison to just 21 percent
utilizing a dial-up connection. And though the prevalence of broadband
access continued its steady growth trend through 2006, growing an
additional seven percentage-points from 2005 (70 percent), *the days
of robust annual growth for broadband penetration may soon be coming
to an end*."

Emphasis added by me -- and I think this statement is an indication of
my point. Not everyone lives in "the big city." Given distance
requirements, etc., there is a huge population of internet users who
do not have high speed access, and aren't likely to in the near
future.

"The latest findings from "The Face of the Web 2006" -- *based on
interviews in 12 key global markets* with more than 6,553 adults,
including 3,798 active Internet users at the end of last year --
reflect the adoption possibilities of the Internet that few other
consumer technologies have shown in the past."

Emphasis added by me -- this information comes from "key global
markets." I doubt they were interviewing the peeps from Podunk. I'm
getting the impression there are a lot more of us than they realize.

>
> If you can get a landline phone at all, then you have the potential to
> have DSL. All you're waiting for is for your phone company to enable
> it at the exchange. Unlike cable, DSL doesn't rely on the ISP putting
> in any infrastructure - the telco does that, and then resells it to
> the ISP.

This article will is a good example of what I'm talking about :
http://news.com.com/Rural+living,+h..._3-6001442.html

Just because you have a telephone doesn't mean you have access to DSL.
And this: http://www.oecd.org/sti/ict/broadband

Ed Jay

2007-04-26, 6:19 pm

veg_all@yahoo.com scribed:

>On Apr 24, 4:04 pm, "John" <jpl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>I was thinking about that too, something like wireless robots that
>work off something attached to your usb port. Then these robots can be
>controlled from the web. I am sure something like this already exists
>or not?

I already do these things. http://www.x10.com/homepage.htm
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Sam Alex

2007-04-26, 6:19 pm

On 2007-04-24, veg_all@yahoo.com <veg_all@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have been using the web since 1994 and have noticed the following
> evolution trend:
>
> Pre 1990's - Text dominated web
> 1990-1995 - Pictures added
> 1995-2000 - Audio added
> 2000-2010 - Video added
> 2010+ - ?????
>
> Now that we have text, pictures, audio and video, what more is there
> to the web? I think we are at the end of what the web can promise.
> Now things will just get more standardized and stable over the next
> 10-30 years.
>

I think the web will start to move into every crack of everyone's lives, not
that it's not already there for some. I think as speeds start increasing,
folks will find ingenious ways of using the Internet, I mean who thought
VoIP would take off like it has, or that folks would be downloading music
and videos from the Internet. IN the days of dial-up this idea would've
been nuts.

I honestly think what comes in 2010 and beyond we can't even imagine right
now. I bet folks will do more remote-control type stuff as the speeds start
getting faster, example being you have one person playing piano on one site
but robotic arms mimicing the movements on a remote piano 1000 miles away.
Also with wifi becoming more available, I think there are things we're just
now starting to see that are possible with always-on anywhere connectivity.

It's scary in a way... When I first touched the Internet in 1993 it was
more of a way to communicate with friends and family over email and IRC,
plus a fun alternative to BBSing. I mean I remember hitting simtel.com via
FTP in 1994 and having access to way more files then any local BBS had, and
no waiting for a free line.

Times they are a changin', but only time will tell if it's all for the good.

Sam

Blinky the Shark

2007-04-26, 6:19 pm

Mark Goodge wrote:

> There are people with no computer, just as there are people with no
> telephone, no television, no freezer or no car. No technology ever
> achieves 100% penetration; there will always be some people who aren't
> interested in it.

http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/9044.jpg

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Mark Goodge

2007-04-26, 6:19 pm

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 06:58:56 -0500, Jerry Stuckle put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>Not necessarily, Mark. DSL has distance limits. For instance, I'm over
>13K feet from my local office. The phone company won't provide a DSL
>line because I'm over 10K feet. Interestingly enough, some other
>companies claim they can do it over the same lines - but they won't even
>guarantee 128K bps.

I did say that you only have the potential for DSL, not that can
actually get it.

>
>No, DSL uses higher frequencies, and therefore suffers from higher
>attenuations at the same distance. And yes, the technology is
>improving, but so far it hasn't violated the laws of physics. :-)

Indeed, but in practice the number of people who are outside the
theoretical limit for DSL is shrinking considerably. The maximum
practical distance for DSL is now about 6km - which is considerably
more than your 13,000 feet (assuming you do mean feet, not yards) from
the exchange. But, of course, that's only true with the latest
equipment, and your telco may well not have the latest equipment. And
by the time they get round to upgrading your exchange, several years
may have passed - at which point you'll be on the cutting edge, but
people elsewhere will be several years behind.

Eventually, we'll reach a point where DSL coverage is pretty much
synonymous with fixed line voice coverage, at least for all but the
most extreme situations (and, by then, the most extreme fixed line
requirements will probably have been replaced by wireless anyway). But
there's a problem with living in a country which was an early adopter
of DSL technology, as the first installations were strictly
short-range only and there may not yet be an economic case for
replacing them all over again. Sometimes, being late to the party can
be a good thing in this situation - that's one of the reasons why many
Asian countries have better DSL coverage than the US and UK.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Photos: http://www.goodge.co.uk
"When your thoughts are too expensive to ever want to keep"

Andy Dingley

2007-04-26, 6:19 pm

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:27:40 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
<cfajohnson@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:

> 1452, the first book was printed. Had they come to the end of
> what books can promise?

868CE is the first _surviving_ printed book (a copy of the Diamond
Sutra). Gutenberg just changed how they were printed, he didn't invent
printing or printed books.

2007-04-29, 6:17 pm

veg_all@yahoo.com wrote:
> I have been using the web since 1994 and have noticed the following
> evolution trend:
>
> Pre 1990's - Text dominated web
> 1990-1995 - Pictures added
> 1995-2000 - Audio added
> 2000-2010 - Video added
> 2010+ - ?????
>
> Now that we have text, pictures, audio and video, what more is there
> to the web? I think we are at the end of what the web can promise.
> Now things will just get more standardized and stable over the next
> 10-30 years.

Kind of reminds me of the guy in the 1870's who stated that everything
useful that could be invented had already been invented.

The trends you noted are all about how our senses interpret information.
There's only 5 senses and I don't foresee a major technology in the
immediate future for transmitting touch and smell unless it's in the virtual
reality realm. But evolution of the net isn't only about new ways to
perceive information, it's also about new means of delivering and using that
info.

"Internet Everywhere" isn't a reality yet. New requirements for the delivery
and presentation of data need to happen to make it work. Probably involving
new types of information. Think of what you might like to have in a net
enabled automobile. Would you use info to continuously monitor the vehicle
mechanicals?; Place an order at the Burger Doodle drive through?; Start the
car on a cold morning?; Monitor you and keep you awake?

And don't forget that they're putting electronic circuitry in a fabric used
for clothing now. What info would you like delivered to your shirt and how
would it need to be presented?

--
dp