HdBW – Digital Culture & Trendwatching

HdBW students – Master Program

This page contains all general information about the course digital culture and trendwatching.

Contact info:
email: tom@flatworldbusiness.com
skype: tom_fleerackers

Slides used in class:
KickOff & Introduction
Value Creation

Digital Value Model:
These movies and links will help you in using the Digital Value Model.

Check out my two blogposts as:
Creating operational excellence with the digital value model
The human side of the digital value model

The human side of the digital value model.


Have data help your value proposition


Intelligence Augmented empowers your value proposition


The user interface helps you simplify your value proposition


Further reading:
Brainchains – Theo Compernolle (2014)
Contagious: Why things catch on – Jonah Berger (2016)
The Day after tomorrow – Peter Hinssen (2017)
When digital becomes human – Steven Van Belleghem (2015)
Customers the day after tomorrow – Steven Van Belleghem (2017)
Technology vs humanity – Gert Leonhard (2016)
X: The experience when digital meets design – Brain Solis (2015)

Value Proposition Design – Alexander Osterwalder (2014)
Trend Driven Innovation – Henry Mason (2015)

Trend Posters




You keep a digital record of all your assignments.
You wire-transfer your portfolio to tom@flatworldbusiness.com  on the due date through wetransfer.com.
Due date is Friday 26/06/2020 – 12:00 (noon) – the stamp on the wetransfer-mail is your verification!

Please make sure to have a source reference where necessary, and that your name is on each assignment and your portfolio.
Please label your documents with the “assignment name_your name”.

0 “Class” assignment – GROUP ASSIGNMENT
Re-Thinking mobility in the future
What’s the future of mobility?

Consumer Trend Canvas

1 Digital is disrupting our lives
How do different generations deal with digital in their life.
Describe your (customer) journey and one of somebody else in the same situation. Make sure that you differ in ‘digital’ generation.  Describe the impact of digital technology in this situation for the both of you.
You are free in the way you describe that journey BUT it needs to be supported by visual elements (photo, movie, drawing, …).
Besides your discription of this journeys, you need to make a conclusion!
What did you notice?
Where do they differ?
Where are they the same?
What’s the impact of digital technology on the lives of these people.

2 Past, Present & Future Outlook
You search for 3 articles on the web about the digital evolution. You link each article as a comment on the Digital Outlook page. You comment on each article, situating the phase the article is writing about.
These articles need to be in English and date between 01/09/2019 and 17/01/2020.

The title of your article = title of the comment
Hyperlink to the original article + resource of the article + publication date
Situate the article in the digital evolution and give your personal reflection on this article using course language.
(f.i. agree, disagree, experience, ….)
[Please be aware that for your comment to show, I’ve got to approve it. This can take up to 24h, so please be patient. After this approval you’re free to post any comments.]
[You don’t need to insert this assignment in your digital portfolio]

3 Digital Businesses
Go to the previous section – web 1.0, web 2.0, web 3.0 …. a bird’s-eye on a definition of check the slides.
Search for each phase(1, 2 and 3) a company example (of an existing business).

[Each company/business can only be taken once by a student!]
You share your web-businesses in the comments below (on this page) and validate at least 2 other businesses from your colleagues through a reply on that comment.
Your comment argues why these companies are (or are not) phase 1.0, 2.0 or 3.0 companies (use the indicators from class and presentation).

Prepare a brief presentation of each web business type
Each presentation (ppt, keynote, ….) has
– an up-to-date  company profile (name, description of the core business, company size, short history, number of employees)
– an explanation on why and how this web-businesses is web 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 or 4.0
For the HdBWstudents there is a restriction: You cannot take Amazon, Apple, Starbucks, IKEA, Toyota, Domino’s Pizza, Nokia, Google, Snapchat, WeChat, What’sApp, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube.

4 Create a Value Proposition Canvas (VPC) for your web 1.0 business (from assignment 3) which discribes the ass-is situation = NOW
You describe the basic (off-line) value proposition of your web 1.0 company and the customers segments this value proposition serves.
Then you descibe the value proposition which is delivered through the website of that company. Focus on what problem your company tries to solve or what need it serves.


5 Create a Digital Value Model (DVM) for your company which let’s your company evolve in its digital evolu
You reshape your phase 1 company into a phase 2, 3 or 4 by using the digital value model.
You use 2 (mega) trends in your transformationproces.
Explain how those trends effect your Digital Value Model.

Digital Value Model

Do a check of your new value proposition in your first value proposition canvas.
Did you create (new) gains?
Did you solve (all?) pains?

6 Connect your Digital Value Model with your 3 articles of assignment 2.
You explain and reflect on these articles in relationship to your business case in the digital value model.

Each student can be coached on DVM over Skype. Please make appointments in time.
Skype appointments will be done between May 1st and June 5th, 2020.


60% on Portfolio assignments (1-5) – Individual Scoring
40% on Class/Group assignment (0) – The future of automotive
(20% on the group paper you hand in, 20% on the presentation)

  • Level 0 – (0-6) Unsufficiant:
    The student does not give a solution to the answer.
    The student lacks to analyse the case.
    The provided solution is out of ‘scope’ of this case.
  • Level 1 – (7-11) Partial Knowledge:
    The student is answering the right questions, and is proposing a sufficiant solution. The sollution lacks sufficient analysis adnd/or inproper reference.
  • Level 2 – (12-16) Good
    The student’s solution is a suitable answer to the posed question. The solution is well analysed and has proper reference to support it.
  • Level 3 – (17-20) Higher Potential
    The student’s solution challenges the question. The level of solution surpasses the suitable answers and tackles a wider perspective. The solution is properly analysed and has reference to support it.
91 comments on “HdBW – Digital Culture & Trendwatching
  1. Ludwig Kleemann says:

    Phase 1: Waschtreff (http://www.waschtreff.de)
    Phase 2: Chefkoch (https://www.chefkoch.de)
    Phase 3: SAP (https://www.sap.com/index.html)

    • Alina Rosenberg says:

      I totally agree with Chefkoch because the website does not only provide receipts and information about food but established a big community to enable their users to create own content and additionally, exchange information with other users.

      I am not sure about your third example. I agree that SAP offers to their clients solutions with IoT and Extended Reality but I cannot find the web 3.0 experience on their website. They don’t include semantic content in their web page, so for me it belongs to the Web 1.0. Please let me know if I am wrong or just couldn’t find the extended version of the website.

      • Ludwig Kleemann says:

        Hi Alina,

        Thank you for your response! I think we have a different understanding about the web-business we have to find. In my opinion we should find a web-business which fits to phase 3 in general and not just the website. You might be right if we just have to analyze the website by itself, maybe we should discuss this in class.

        Nevertheless, I saw SAP with its machine learning platform “SAP Leonardo“ which runs on a SAP cloud platform as a phase 3 – or smart web-business because of its semantic web, where all information are categorized and stored in such a way that a computer can understand it as well as a human.

        If you are interested in, you can take a look how SAP Leonardo works on this short video:

        Please let me know if you have further questions!

    • Jannis Klocke says:

      I also agree on Phase Phase 1 and two as Waschtreff offers only Informations without any Interactions and Chefkoch is build by its user generated Content.

      On Phase 3 I am also not sure. I would say that some of the SAP Support Tools, like SAPNotes and the other Troubleshooting Tools qualify as Semantic Web, as they offer Information that is stored for Humans as well as for artificial Intelligence(SAPNotes). Also SAP would probably be one of the first Companys that link theyre Web-Services directly to the physical objects of Clients like Computers, Printers etc.
      Concluding I would say that SAP as a Company qualifys for Web3.0 while the Website alone without the offered tools does not.

  2. Alina Rosenberg says:

    Zalando Online Shop: Web 1(Presenting the products)
    YouTube: Web 2 (Social Interaction)
    Mister Spex: Web 3 (AR: try out glasses online)

    • Alina Rosenberg says:

      Instead of YouTube: Pflege.pro (https://www.pflege.pro)

    • Jannis Klocke says:

      Agree with Web 3, as ist features a mixed and therefore augmented reality by combining the glasses virtually with the Face of the users.

      As for the Phase 2 I agree, because of its user generated Content in the Sections `Forum` and Community as well as its Social Networking features in the affromentioned Sections.

      Zalando.com offers many features of Web1.0 as it is a source of Information but being a company that offers pure Online-Services I would have to disagree and categorize it in Phase 2. The Section `Get the look` for example allows the User to follow certain `trendsetters` and to get Information about their newest looks (Even though I would call this a scheme because I believe this content is just generated from Zalando) and buy them in a whole pack (https://www.zalando.de/get-the-look-damen/?styleFilter=style_extravagant).
      Also the Interaction with the Shop itself (buying the Items) and the Client-Service would, in my opinion qualify as Web 2.0 Features.

    • Philipp Holzhacker says:

      For me the examples for Web 2.0, as well as 3.0 are very aptly chosen. Only with the website for Web 1.0, I do not agree one hundred percent. In my opinion, Zalando has the possibility to get contiguous products proposed. For example, after a certain keyword search, it is often offered that customers who have purchased these articles have been interested in the following additional articles. That’s why I’d rather call this site Web 2.0. Nevertheless, I think that the other two examples were chosen very aptly.

  3. jrgplutte says:

    Phase 1: Vortex (https://www.vortex.com)
    Phase 2: DSTLD (https://www.dstld.com)
    Phase 3: Magic Leap (https://www.magicleap.com)

    • Ludwig Kleemann says:

      Hi Jörg,

      I think you did a great Job. Even if I do not understand what vortex.com is doing or selling, it’s a “read-only” Website and fits to phase 1.

      Your phase 2 company (dstld.com) is a good fit, too. Besides its online shop the website gives the user the opportunity to rate and to write a review to each product – the customer has the chance to interact and to give his personal opinion which he can share with other customers. Dstld.com also has a real time customer support service where you can start a Live Chat with an employee. On top dstld.com is very active on Instagram. On social media channels like Instagram not only the company can reach their audience but also give their customers the chance to interact with each other.

      Finally I totally agree with your phase 3 company. Magicleap with its VR technology is a perfect example for the Web 3.0. It combines the real with the virtual world by giving the human a tool to interact with the technology in real-time.
      I would love to try the Magicleap One by myself one day..

    • Jörg Plutte says:

      After reviewing my Phase 1. Web 1.0 Company I’ve noticed that I’m not quiet happy with my solution so I want to change it to the following:

      Phase 1: Authenticprodue (https://www.authenticproduce.com)

    • Isabella Juckenath says:

      Hi Jörg! 🙂

      I really do like your new company for the web 1.0 phase. It’s a really basic website, which mainly serves the purpose to inform the customers. You can’t interact with someone or leave a comment. Therefore, there is no interaction and all and all indicators for web 1.0 are given.

      For your other two companies I partly agree with Ludwig. The comment/ review function would qualify the website for 2.0. Maybe I have to log in to use and see those functions.

      Anyway your last company website perfectly represents the web 3.0, using VR. In fact, the website is one of the nicest I stumbled upon so for. So you did a really good job/research here!

    • Jörg Plutte says:

      Hi Jannis,

      I think you are absolutely right with your first website. Even though it is your families old webpage 😉 you are right about it that it is a read only website. Only the most basic way of getting in touch with the company is integrated on the website.

      Your second webpage is discussable. The general structure of the website of reddit is more likely towards a web 2.0 orientated website but im not sure about the classic social media integration. If you like you can say that reddit builds his own “community blog social media system” so I guess is right to say that reddit is part of web 2.0 with focus on it own community.

      Wolframalpha is also very special. Again the website is more or less a classy standard web 2.0 but its content and their product is focused on AI and therefore I agree with you that it is part of web 3.0. Great job !

      Best Jörg

    • Benjamin Schulz says:

      Hi Jannis,

      I think you found very good websites that cover all three phases.

      The first website completely covers the first phase. It can be seen that the website has a mono-directional user interaction. The task of this website is to search for information. In addition, there is no interaction with users, so the content is read-only.

      In my opinion, the requirements are fulfilled on your second website. Here it can be seen that the website supports collaboration and idea generation, through micro-blogs and comments. It is also possible to sort the generated content through the tags. The points above clearly characterize webpages from the second phase.

      Your third website is really unique. For me, the concept of the website is very interesting. I find the idea very exciting to improve search requests on the internet through AI technologies. Therefore, I think that you also have fulfilled the task here.

      Best regards,


    • Franz Dorschner says:

      Hi Philipp,

      In my opinion you have found very representative examples for the 3 different web phases. Your phase 1 website is a very “old-fashioned” read-only website where you can only get brief information about the butcher shop itself and the opening times of it and there is no interaction between the users and the company.
      This is completely different in your phase 2 company Scott-sports, because not only does it offer a very professional looking online shop but also includes a community function where you can get tips & tricks for using, stowing and riding your bike or check out different stories of other users, which in my opinion is a very cool way of interacting with each other.
      In your phase 3 example I had a hard time figuring out what is special about the VW car configurator and what really sets it apart from all the other car configurators to really being able to call it a phase 3 company, until I found out that through the usage of virtual reality you get to see all the details you have built in the car during configuration. This is an awesome way of experiencing the “car of your dreams” without having to buy it in advance and even though VW isn’t the only car manufacturer offering this functionality nowadays, it is still a great benefit for every potential customer and therefore I would totally agree with you that it is a good example for web 3.0

    • Ruzica Bulatovic says:

      Hi Philipp,

      “Metzger Huber” is a perfect example for a website, which is web phase 1. It’s a read-only site where you can check only basic information about the business. Their web appearance is very old-fashioned and reminds me of past times. Moreover there is no way to directly get in contact with the company or to see which concrete products they offer. It is fun to see that such websites still exist in times of VR/AR and AI.

      Your choice for web phase 2.0 is very cool, because it reflects your love to sports 🙂 I think you are completely right with the business, because the hompage of Scott-Sports offers a lot of functions and activities which qualify this site for phase 2. These include the modern presentation of their products, the online shop function and the direct links to their appearance on all popoular social media sites.

      The Volkswagen Configurator is, as Franz already mentioned, at first glance not easy to identify as a web business which is phase 3.0. First it seems to be a typical 2.0 site because of the obvious functions. But after the configuration of a car, the icons to use VR or 360° view appear. Thereby, they offer the possibilty to get a better, authentic insight to the car, the customer has created by himself. This is exactly what qualifies a web business to be part of web phase 3.0. Easy to discover and apply, customer-oriented with the possibilty to use functions such as AR and VR.



  4. Benjamin Schulz says:

    Web 1.0:
    Company: Züblin ( Construction builder)

    ▪ Mono-directional user interaction
    ▪ Only scearching for information
    ▪ Read only

    Web 2.0:
    Company: Cisco (Tech Company)

    ▪ Usage of support -community platform
    ▪ Collaborative content creation and modification
    ▪ Supports collaboration and helps gather collective intelligence
    ▪ Interaction and participation of customers to solve problems
    ▪ Including tags to sort topics
    ▪ Including micro-blogs (like twitter)
    ▪ Mobile version possible

    Web 3.0
    Company: WDR ( Media Company)

    Customer is experiencng and learning in a virtual reality about coal mining

    • Benjamin Schulz says:

      and argumented reality (360° view)

    • Philipp Holzhacker says:

      Hello Benjamin,

      I think that in your example of Web 1.0 you found a suitable website, but it provides a lot of information for a “conservative” site. Nevertheless, there is no interaction with the user and can be seen as a Web 1.0 page. Exactly the interaction that is not given in your example 1, can be found in the example for Web 2.0 again. Accordingly, this example is in my opinion correctly selected. The user has the possibility to download content, to purchase services or to use the support. I found your example for Web 3.0 particularly successful. Just loading the content takes a little more time and reflects the complexity of the website. With many 360 degree animations, this website is certainly one of the complex websites of Web 3.0. In the end, I think that you have found suitable examples for all 3 examples! Of course, if I am wrong, I am looking forward to a feedback.

    • Ruzica Bulatovic says:

      Hi Ben,

      I think your examples for each web phase are chosen very precisely.

      Your example for web 1.0, Ed. Züblin AG, offers extensive information about their provided services as well as about the company itself. An interaction between the company and the customer is not given. On their website you can only search for information, so as you already mentioned, it is a read only site. According to these aspects I totally agree that Züblin.de is a perfect example for web 1.0.

      The website of Cisco Systems GmbH, offers a lot of aspects which qualify a site to be part of web phase 2.0. There is a lot of interaction provided. For instance, the website offers a community platform where the customer can easily become part of a discussion. Either you can search for suitable solutions to a specific problem or you can contribute contents in order to help others. This function is a form of participating web, where people can have online conversations/interactions within minutes. A direct link to the profile of the company on other social networks can also be found on Cisco.com. They include tags on their site in order to sort topics. It can be deduced, that the comapny is very customer oriented and focused on the customer needs. An available mobile version make the fit of the companys’ website to the social web phase, phase 2.0, complete.

      Glückauf, a website of WDR, is a typical example for web 3.0. The customer learns interesting facts about coal mining by being directly addressed. It’s an interactive site on which the viewer can get an authentic inside to the topic by experiencing the virtual environment with 360° WebVR directly in his browser. On this website the customer doesn’t only get information, he experieces situations. Due to the possibilty to chose which information should be displayed, it’s a good example for a personalized offer of content. Glückauf is a website which is build around data. I really like their concept and the way they present information to their audience.



  5. Franz Dorschner says:

    Web Phase 1: Sister Laela (https://sisterlaela.com)

    Web Phase 2: ALDI SÜD (https://www.aldi-sued.de/de/)

    Web Phase 3: High Fidelity (https://highfidelity.com/started)
    FYI about some features High Fidelity offers check out this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAtCCNkcPN0

    • Franz Dorschner says:

      I have reviewed my Web Phase 1 company Sister Laela and discovered that they recently included an online shop to their homepage which is the reason why I think that it is not a Web 1.0 Website anymore because it is no longer a read only website.

      My new Web Phase 1 Company is : Bäcker Schmid (http://baeckerschmid.eu)

    • Jörg Plutte says:

      Hi Franz,

      as you have already mentioned that your first webpage SisterLaela updated their page and integrated social media within their online shop, I totally agree with you that this isn’t a web 1.0 webpage anymore. Your new page is a true example for a web 1.0 website. Read only at its best. No interaction at all. Good example.

      Your second webpage from ALDI shows all qualities of web 2.0. Online shop, social media, different contact possibilities and different other possibilities to interact with the company. Additionally their webpage is compatible for mobile usage, so it right to say that this webpage is at the stage of web 2.0 the social web.

      Your third company HighFidelity is something very new and different. The concept that VR is used for everyday business is a great concept where the digital and our real world merge together. I think you did a great job and this webpage and the company behind it is probably one of the best examples so far here in our discussion for web 3.0.

      Best Jörg

  6. Ludwig Kleemann says:

    Hi Franz,

    You did a great job with your companies.
    I will start with your Web 1.0 company. In my opinion it was a good choice to change your company, your first example “Sister Laela” included a Web shop and social media channels where the customers can express their opinion.
    “Bäcker Schmid” on the other side is a perfect fit for a web 1.0 company. It is a “read-only” website where the customer only gets information.

    I also like your second example “Aldi-Süd”. They offer a blog where users can get information and can comment on. But not only on the website but on social media Aldi connects with the users in a really good way. They are active on various platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Youtube and Pintarest. On these platforms Aldi gives the customers the chance to connect with each other. Again it’s a good fit and is a good example for a web 2.0 company.

    Your web 3.0 company High Fidelity is a good pick, too. It’s amazing how the users can be in a big virtual reality platform where they can play and shop together. I also like the video about the features where you again can see some characteristics of a web 3.0 company.

    Good Job!

  7. Isabella Juckenath says:

    Web 1.0
    Cafe Jasmin (https://www.cafe-jasmin.com/)

    Web 2.0
    Digg (digg.com)

    Web 3.0
    Salesforce (ww.w.salesforce.com)

    • Jörg Plutte says:

      Hi Isabella,

      first of all I think you did a good job looking for those webpages!

      There are some things I would like to discuss here with you if you don’t mind 😉

      Your first webpage Cafe Jasmin is a classy Web 1.0 webpage. Read only, displayed some products and an easy way to contact the company. But I’ve noticed that there is already a Instagram implementation on this webpage. As I know it Web 1.0 is without any social media right ?

      Your second webpage is a very nice example of a new way of blogging I guess ? So web 2.0 is right with implementation of videos, blogs and other interaction with webpage visitors and additionally social media as well. So good job !

      Your third company is very interesting. Their product about a CRM Software Service is very good for startups or other companies that want to improve in customer service so I think their product is very much web 3.0 focused. I’m not sure about the webpage it self because I could not find any integration of Social Media, VR, AR or other upcoming technologies for web 3.0. Probably you can tell me something about that?

      Happy new year and good job 🙂

      Greeting Jörg

    • Arbia Bejaoui says:

      Hi Isabella,

      In my opinion you have made good choices 😊

      Your first choice “Cafe Jasmin” has a website which contains steady information to be used by customers to have an idea about the location and what they offer.
      However, as Jörg has mentioned in his comment, the website has an Instagram badge on it whichis a form of interaction between the Café and its followers and am not sure if this unique feature would switch the webpage to web 2.0. Maybe they have newly added it to jump into the world of social media and have more advertisement.

      Your second choice is a direct hit of Web 2.0. The platform has constantly updated lists of popular and trending content from around the Internet which is dynamically exchanged. The members of the community or bloggers could share, recommend web content or submit a webpage. In addition to Facebook and Twitter badges, the members could interact with the content within the webpage by voting it up “digg” which means “I like”. So good job!

      Your last choice, salesforce, is in my opinion a Web 3.0 company although at a first look the website is almost certainly Web 2.0. But when you browse more you can find that the company offers a web-based CRM and business software as a service. Also offers a huge collaboration across companies/users with the Salesforce.com team of employees, programmers and developers. So, Salesforce not only interacts with the users but also enable them to configure their CRM application. Which is not an usual thing in the technology marketplace.
      It has Also an online application marketplace for third-party applications that run on its platform: The AppExchange. So good company choice!

      @ Jörg: please check this Link:

  8. Ruzica Bulatovic says:

    Web 1.0
    Bäckerei Schuhmair (http://www.schuhmair.de/)

    Web 2.0
    Liu Jo (https://www.liujo.com/de/)

    Web 3.0
    First Parallel (http://www.firstparallel.com/en/)

    • Franz Dorschner says:

      Hi Ruzica,

      First of all I have to say that I agree with Ben, that you have found good examples for the different web phases. 🙂

      Just like my Web 1.0 company you have chosen a bakery and even though the website of yours is not as bad as the one from my company, it is still definitely a Web 1.0 website. It is a read only website with a bunch of information packed on it but there is no way to get directly in contact with the company and they don’t even show their offered menu on their homepage. I begin to question myself if all bakeries in Germany are so backward in their digital development 😀

      Your second company “Threadless” is also a perfect example of how Web 2.0 works. At first the website seems just like a regular online shop with an integrated community function, which by itself wouldn’t make the company special but what I think is the cool part about that company is that all the designs of the clothes and other accessories offered on the platform are made by regular people that send in their drawings and earn money if their designs get chosen by the company and products with their designs are being sold. This is a very cool way of social interaction and community integration and therefore a perfect example for Web 2.0

      I also liked your third example because already by entering the website you feel that it´s going to be a very different experience than on most other websites we use everyday. The futuristic look and design of this website is stunning and it is awesome that you can browse through the entire homepage by scrolling and dragging. Everything moves and nothing is static like in most other websites and there are multiple different “worlds” you can enter here. It´s already a fun thing looking at everything here on the computer and I can only imagine how cool this platform is when you are using your AR or VR devices.

      Good Job 👍

  9. Ruzica Bulatovic says:

    I found a more interesting example for web 2.0 (https://www.threadless.com/).
    (Nevertheless, I think LiuJo.com is another example for web 2.0.)

    • Benjamin Schulz says:

      Hi Ruzica,

      I think you are completely right with your website. It’s the perfect example of a first phase website. Here, you can only read the content or search for specific information. For example, which pastries are offered at which season. 😛 This shows a mono-directional user interaction.

      The second website is a very cool example for the second web phase. The site has a community that combines blogs, forums, podcasts and interactive scoring system for designs. The forum uses micro-blogs, which can be commented on and sorted by tags according to themes. Thus, the forum supports cooperation and idea generation between the users.

      Your third example is also a very successful example for the third phase. I think the interactive structure of the site is very cool. In addition, the website combines AR and VR. It is very cool gimmick that you can hover over a city.

      Best regards,


  10. Arbia Bejaoui says:

    Web 1.0: Baubüro Maier, Construction consultancy company,

    Web 2.0: Intel Corporation: A multinational corporation and technology company (Chip maker), https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/homepage.html

    Web 3.0: VirtualShopping.guide, online platform for virtual shopping (especially to support local retailers, suppliers and service providers in west Germany), https://www.virtualshopping.guide/

    • Isabella Juckenath says:

      Hi there 🙂

      I really like your examples for the different web phases.

      The chosen company website for web 1.0 has a simple and basic website on which you can only read and get the main information. The people who visit this website can’t interact with each other or contribute their own content. So I totally agree that this is web 1.0.

      Intel Corporation offers the visitors of their website personal support, they can log in and use a more personalised content. Therefore, the main indicators for web 2.0 the participating web, being able to contribute content and the possibility to interact with someone are given. Hence, web 2.0.

      The website of your third company itself is named virtual-shopping. So the web 3.0 indicator virtual reality should be given and validate it as web 3.0. For me, the virtual on the website is not perfectly solved but in total it is a nice example.

    • Hi Johanna,

      These examples are great!

      Gorans Werkstatt is clearly a Web 1.0 company, as it has a simple website that merely pushes information to the public. It lacks any indication of having a place where the customer can publicly respond to service listings or anything else for that matter.

      Turo, on the other hand, has a more dynamic 2.0 website, giving the customer a more modern experience. In clicking through to the section, “Top Destinations,” the stars and number of trips indicate instantly that a user is able to contribute to the website by sharing reviews. There are also five other links that are provided to allow the public to interact with the company and other consumers. These include: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, and a blog that can be shared via Twitter and Facebook.

      NABU’s Ostsee Life project seems to be pushing the boundaries of the what normally would be a 2-dimensional screen view to that of a 3-dimensional, 360 degree interactive experience. With a click of a button the viewer is able to see the Baltic Sea as if he or she was swimming in it. Not only does the website encourage the user to wear virtual reality headsets, but also encourages the user to wear headphones so that he or she can add sound to the experience, captivating the senses that much more. Do I think the website is a complete 3.0 experience? Maybe not, but NABU seems to be pushing the boundaries of the typical 2D experience and to be a few steps ahead of Web 2.0.

    • Daniel Rehm says:

      Hey Johanna,

      Your examples for Web 1.0 / 2.0 / 3.0 are really good!

      I think the company, Gorans Werkstatt, you have chosen to represent the Web 1.0 is quite good. It is only a “readable” website from the perspective of its users. Moreover, there is only limited interaction between the sites and web users. The website is simply an information platform where users passively get their information without having the opportunity to post reviews or comments.

      The company, Turo, is completely representing the Web 2.0. It is a website where users are allowed to interact more freely with each other. Furthermore, it encourages participation, information sharing and collaboration. Users can interact and communicate via channels like Instagram, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Also, there is the app on Apple and Google store available with regard to the fast communication between the supplier and its customer. Moreover, the client is able to rate to drive with the selected car. It is nearly the same as by Airbnb. Instead of evaluating the apartment you are able to rate the ride with the car and the car in general. In my view you have chosen the right example for showing us what are the main characteristics for the Web 2.0.

      Under the name OstseeLIFE, NABU has created Germany’s first virtual underwater reality (VR) of a domestic sea. The “dive” through the Baltic Sea with VR glasses is deceptively real. The 360-degree reality can also be discovered on the PC without VR glasses. Instead of only viewing it on a 2-dimensional view, you are now able to have a 3-dimensional perspective. In my view, I would say you have picked a really good company which represents more the end of Web 2.0 instead of the beginning of Web 3.0. Normally the web 3.0 consists characteristics like natural language search and recommendation agents which are commonly known as AI (Artificial Intelligence). Moreover, the aim is collecting information and make a specific database. In my opinion, the above-mentioned points do not fully meet the requirements for the Web 3.0 (sorry), but your chosen website uses new innovations and trends to change and simplify the world!

    • Vanessa Marini says:

      Hey Johanna,

      first of all I think all of your examples are really good! 🙂

      Web 1.0: Great example. The website really delivers all needed information about the company and its services. The consumer finds everything he needs without any unneeded extras as animations, chats etc. So there is no interaction possible, which makes it a perfect example for 1.0.

      Web 2.0: In first glance it Is clear to see, that this website is dynamic and is based on interactive technologies as you can choose between different objects as Location, Date and Time. It also contains the possibility to login or to create a user account, which makes it possible to interact with the company and makes it a typical part for Web 2.0.
      Also at the bottom of the page you can directly connect to the Appstore or to their Social Media profiles. or also you could share the website on your social media. Nice example!

      Web 3.0: I never heard of that page, but I think it is really nice! With one click the consumers has the experience of being at the Ostsee. The pictures have great quality and it is interactive as the user can choose where to “go” or to look at. Also the connection to sound makes it a fantastic experience just as if you were really there. As I used the website it was a bit slow, loading really longand the 360-view was stuck a bit, but I think the potential is there and could become a really nice website for Web 3.0.

    • Sophia Böckmann says:

      Hey Johanna,

      your Web 1.0 Gorans Werkstatt example can be classified as a Web 1.0 company. The website is is simply constructedas and pushes information to the public. There is no reference to a place where the customer can react publicly to service offers or something similar.

      Regarding your Web 2.0 Turo, it is clear to see that this website is dynamic and based on interactive technologies, as you can choose between different objects such as location, date and time. It also includes the ability to log in or create a user account that allows interactions with the company.Also at the bottom of the page, you can connect directly to the Appstore or its social media profiles, or you can share the site in your social media.

      I am very impressed by your web 3.0 example although I didn’t know it before. One click gives consumers the feeling of being at the Ostsee. The images are very high quality and interactive as the user can choose where he wants to go or where he wants to look. The combination to the sound also makes it a fantastic experience, as if you were really there. When I visited the site, it was a little bit slow, the loading felt really long and the 360 view was a bit stuck, but I think the potential is there and could be a really nice site for Web 3.0.

  11. Cristine Thomas says:

    1.0 – Alte Linde – beer garden – http://www.altelinde-regensburg.de/index.php?id=2
    2.0 – Yelp – review site – https://www.yelp.de/n%C3%BCrnberg
    3.0 – Cisco – designs, builds, and sells networking technology – https://www.cisco.com/

    • Johanna Kemle says:

      Hey Cristine,

      I really like your examples.

      I totally agree with your suggestion of your web 1.0 website. The website from “Alte Linde” is definitely a read-only website. There is no possibility for customers to interact with the restaurant or with other customers. The only thing they actively show is their menu or some picutres of the restaurant. So, I think this is a good example for web 1.0 as there is only information accessible.

      Yelp is also a good example for a web 2.0 website. It allows users to rate or evaluate restaurants or other things, share their experience and give recommandations. In addition, Yelp gives you the opportunity to be active in a forum and to exchange different views on any topic. The customer basically drives the page by participating personally and interacting in real time. Yelp is really trying to engage the user.

      For your web 3.0 website I am not quite sure. I do agree that cisco is working with artificial intelligence and machine learning but I’m not sure if they are using it on their website as an experience. Let me know if I missed any feature on the website. I really like though that they offer so many videos to several topics.

    • Jonathan Alon says:

      Hi Christine,

      Really good choice of examples!

      Your first example is a prime example for a Web 1.0. The visitors of this website are limited in only reading the information of the restaurant. There is rather an active communication nor any information flow between customer and Restaurant possible or available. So, I can definitely agree with your decision on that one.

      I also do agree with your second example. Yelp is a really good choice for the Web 2.0 because users of this site can communicate and interact easily with each other, which is what Web 2.0 is all about. Yelp enables you to rate and share your experiences with other people which creates kind of a community inside the website. Great decision with Yelp!

      Cisco is a really interesting choice. I mean, they cover all kinds of products and services in their portfolio, from different types of hardware, to software, networks, security services, different data centers, analytics, and even IoT. The spectrum is huge and I would definitely agree that Cisco is a semantic company with semantic products. The question is, if their website is suitable for Web 3.0 (“read-write-execute” web)? Nevertheless cool company!

    • Sophia Böckmann says:

      Hey, Christine,

      I fully agree with your proposal for your Web 1.0 website. The Alte Linde website is definitely a read-only site. There is no way for customers to interact with the restaurant or with other consumers. The only thing they actively share is their menu or some pictures of the restaurant. So, I think this is a good example of Web 1.0 because there is only information that is accessible.

      Your Web 2.0 example Yelp is also a good example of a Web 2.0 website. It gives users the opportunity to rate or evaluate restaurants or other things, share their experiences and give recommendations. In addition, Yelp gives you the opportunity to be active in a forum and exchange different opinions on any topic. The customer basically controls the site through personal participation and interaction in real time. Yelp really tries to involve the user.

      Unfortunately, I’m not quite sure about your proposed Web 3.0 website Cisco. I agree that Cisco works with artificial intelligence and machine learning, but I’m not sure if they are using it on their website as an experience. I think it’s really great that they offer so many videos on different topics. The spectrum is huge and I would definitely agree that Cisco is a semantic company with semantic products. But like I already mentioned the question is, if the website is appropriate for Web 3.0 (“read-write-execute” web)?

  12. Marie Straub says:

    Phase 1: Landbäckerei Zobel

    Phase 2: Carolin List Blog

    Phase 3: ICAROS VR

    • Marie Straub says:

      Ich ändere meine Phase 1 zu Metzgerei Ruf. Heißt die Landbäckerei Zobel wird ersetzt.

    • Marco Piehl says:

      Hello, Marie,

      Really good examples!

      The homepage of the butcher’s shop Ruf, offers despite relatively modern design little or no possibility for the customer to interact with the company. It is purely a matter of gaining information. The customer has only the possibility to send a kind of e-mail under contact. This is not enough for me to call it a Web 2.0 company. So very good choice!

      With your second example I was not quite sure at first. A blog homepage is always a good choice for a web 2.0 company. However, I was not quite sure whether the Carolin List homepage gives visitors the opportunity to post their own articles or whether it is just an idea of the lifestyle of Carolin List. However, the site offers the possibility to send a private message to Carolin and to connect with her also on other platforms and to exchange with each other. An example of this is Instagram. Therefore I think that the choice fits well to a Web 2.0 company.

      Your third example is really great. The company Icarus offers with a cool product a great possibility to get to know VR. In addition, they offer VR experiences in many different areas: Fitness, Entertainment and also Health. Icarus provides its customers with a semantic and personalized VR experience. Thus it concerns here clearly a Web 3.0 enterprise.

  13. Stefanie Heinzmann says:

    Phase 1: Immobilie Reimann http://www.immobilien-reimann.de/index.php
    Phase 2: Kultimativ GmbH / Knödelkult https://knoedelkult.de/
    Phase 3: Ace & Tate http://www.aceandtate.com/de/

    • Jonathan Alon says:

      Hey Stefanie,

      I find your 3 examples extremely well chosen and very interesting.

      The example with the real estate company corresponds exactly to Web 1.0. The visitor can only read the information, but there is no real interaction. This is a very good example of a very static website. Pretty representative for Web 1.0. Good choice!

      I realy really like the business idea of your second company. Making Knödel from leftover bread is simply brilliant! Your choice is also suitable for Web 2.0. On the website, visitors can contact the company directly and write to them if they are interested. In addition, you can see a link to the social media platforms below (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter), where you can easily exchange information/experiences online and interact with your community. This corresponds perfectly to the principle of the social Web (Web 2.0).

      I also like your last example very much. With its “Virtual Try-on” function, Ace & Tate offers its users the possibility to try on the glasses of their choice online. Through innovative AR technology, Ace & Tate provides its clients a unique, semantic and personalized customer experience. I think this is exactly what the Web 3.0 is all about. Great example!

    • Johanna Kemle says:

      Hi, Stephanie,

      i think you have found very good examples for all three phases of the web.

      Especially the first example of Immobilien Reimann is very well chosen as the website is a read-only website. They do not even link to another website so, all you can do is read the information given.

      I also fully agree with your second example, Knödelkult. It’s truly a web 2.0 website as it even contains an online shop. They also refer serveral times to youtube, twitter, facebook and instagram.

      Also the third website of Ace & tate meets the criteria of web 3.0. The home-try on version is not only really handy, it is also an idicator for the use of virtual reality and therefore for web 3.0. I really like this example!

  14. Jonathan Alon says:

    Web 1.0: Kinder-Secondhand http://www.secondhand-kind.com/index.html

    Web 2.0: Foot Locker https://www.footlocker.de/de/startseite

    Web 3.0: HoloMe https://holo.me

    • Marie Straub says:

      Hi Jonathan,

      I really like your Web 1.0 because it is a very easy and clean website where you have no interaction with anything else. You just can have a look at the offers but no interaction with any other platform. There is just a telephone number for calling the shop.

      Your Web 2.0 is a very good example because this is a online shop where you can buy everything online and have online payments as an option. There are lots of interactions with Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Instagram. You also can use the map function for searching the nearest store in your surrounding. And if you want, there is the option for subscribe the newsletter. So in my opinion, this example is perfect.

      The Web 3.0 is definitely right. You have on the starting side a mobile phone with the AR function. The whole product is about the AR function and you can interact with an QR- Code for your phone where you can try it by yourself. So this is a great interaction for the user.

      Good Job 🙂


    • Janina Lennefer says:

      Hey Jonathan,

      awesome choices! I think each is matching perfectly to its purpose.

      Kinder-Secondhand is a physical retail shop which uses the web only for informational transfer. With no doubt its website is a pure “read-only” with no social interaction or active communication.

      Foot Locker is a prime example for Web 2.0. There are different components like social interaction, communication and the user can contribute own content to the website, i.e. user ratings or the blog comments.

      HoloMe – Pretty cool example. Despite that you can see that big clothing player like H&M are HoloMe’s customers, it looks like fun for every individual and it is a new, but easy-to-use thing. But I guess that’s the key to be a good Web 3.0 solution – Virtual Reality and emotions. 😉

      Well done !

      Best regards,

  15. Daniel Rehm says:

    Web 1.0: Cartlidges Quality Meat (retail butcher shop which is specialized in high quality fresh meat products) – https://cartlidgesqualitymeats.com

    Web 2.0: Aktien mit Kopf Community (Blogger platform where you can learn how financial systems are working) – https://www.aktienmitkopf.de

    Web 3.0: Cloud Minds / Cloud Robots (end-to-end cloud robot system with Human Augmented Robot Intelligence with eXtreme Reality and robot bodies with Smart Compliant Actuators) – https://www.en.cloudminds.com/home-new/cloud-robots/

    • Marco Piehl says:

      Hello, Daniel,

      first of all I find that you have selected three optimal examples, which reflect the basic conditions for a Web 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 very well.

      A look at your Web 1.0 example: Cartlidges Quality Meats quickly shows that this is clearly a Web 1.0 company. The rather spartan website does not offer the user or customer the opportunity to interact in a great way, let alone to give feedback. Very good choice!

      Now to your Web 2.0 company: Aktien im Kopf. The choice of a homepage which interacts like a blog is of course an optimal choice. Users have here the possibility to share knowledge, to inform themselves and to exchange themselves. All these are important characteristics which a 2.0 enterprise / homepage must contain.

      Only a short view on the name of your Web 3.0 enterprise suggests already that it the necessary requirements. If one opens now the homepage, this impression confirms itself. The company Cloudminds not only offers conventional cloud solutions and products but also concentrates on robotics. The products of this company are able to work on and apply information. Thus they offer an autonomous solution.
      So I think that you have made a very good choice with CloudMinds.

      All in all a very good research, Daniel.

    • Hani Mattar says:

      Hi Daniel,

      Your first example is a good one. A read only website where the user cannot interact with the content in any way. The information provided on the website was entered by the creator and does not change unless the website is redesigned. Quite basic and provides the user with basics such as who they are, what they do and where to find them.

      Aktien mit Kopf commnity is also a good web 2.0 example. Typical blog, where content is provided by users and creators at the same time. Users can also leave their comments and contribute in various ways throughout the website. It connects people with a specific common interest and collects information in one place to be shared between them.

      Cloud minds is a very good web 3.0 example. As soon as you open the website, you start seeing all the web 3.0 characteristics. They offer robotics solutions for various problems that include autonomous factors, artificial intelligence and augmented reality. Clear and good example to describe a web 3.0.

  16. Marco Piehl says:

    Web 1.0: mrosko architekten – https://www.mrosko-architekten.de

    Web 2.0: Kickstarter – https://www.kickstarter.com/?lang=de

    Web 3.0: Zappar – https://www.zappar.com

    • Daniel Rehm says:

      Hey Marco,

      You have picked three really good examples which are absolutely representing the three different web phases (Web 1.0, Web 2.0 and Web 3.0).

      I think it is a really good example for the Web 1.0. This website is read-only, the user is not able to interact with the page content and it is limited to what exactly the Webmaster uploads to the specific website. Moreover, the website of the company “Mrosko architect” is a very static and not dynamic website. They only show the projects which they have already created but the clients are not able to post comments or to rate projects on the website. All characteristics for a Web 1.0 are fulfilled.

      Really good choice! The website of the company is linked to the Web 2.0. Kickstarter is a website for crowdfunding. Therefore, a company or a person advertises its business idea to raise money for financing. Every project on Kickstarter must produce something that can be shared with others. A project has a clear goal, such as releasing an album, book, or artwork. On this website there is the possibility given that users are able to rate and evaluate different projects which are on the Kickstarter homepage. They can post their thoughts and can give possible improvements for the specific investing project. Furthermore, there are various community groups created where users are able to interact within one particular project. The website encourages people to be active in a forum and participate in the specific Kickstarter blog. Moreover, you as an active user can follow Kickstarter on social media platforms like Instagram, Fakebook and Twitter. It is about connecting people putting the “I” in user interface, and the “we” into a web of social participation. Consequently, you as a user have the ability to contribute content and interact with other web users.

      This company’s website shows us how the Web 3.0 should look like! The aim of Zappar is creating augmented, virtual and mixed reality experiences and turn almost anything into an interactive media channel. The Zappar App can be used for simple video-based augmentations as well as for very complex and interactive 3D works. With Zappar, almost anything can be achieved and it is always great to see the wow-effect of augmented reality. Augmented reality (AR) mixes the real world with the virtual world. Moreover, additional information and features will be shown. The company Zappar contains dynamic applications, “machine-to-machine” interaction and interactive services. In Web 3.0 computers are able to interpret information and intelligently generate useful content to the needs of its users like your chosen company.

    • Vanessa Marini says:

      Hey Marco,

      I really like all of your examples for the different Phases.

      Web 1.0: Great example. The website really delivers all needed information about the company and its services. The consumer finds everything he needs without any unneeded extras as animations, chats etc. So there is no interaction possible, which makes it a perfect example for 1.0.

      Web 2.0: Also really nice example. The base of crowdfunding: the practice of funding a project or venture by raising money from a large number of people who each contribute a relatively small amount, typically via the Internet. So it is obvious that communication between different parties is given. You can read about different projects, get information, subscribe to a newsletter, and communicate in different groups. Also social media platforms are connected which fulfills the basic needs to call a page a Web 2.0 website.

      Web 3.0: I really like this example. I didn’t know about this company and I think it is really interesting what they do. They provide tools to make your own AR experiences, they bring Mixed Reality to the mass market while explaining there vision really understandable for everyone. It can be used for complex projects, as for projects of people than never been in touch with AR oder 3D before. The website provides a possibility for fantastic animations and improves the visuals of different projects.

  17. Vanessa Marini says:

    Web 1.0: Metzgerei Gayer – http://www.metzgerei-gayer.de
    web 2.0: Novalanalove Blog – http://www.novalanalove.de
    Web 3.0: Audi Konfigurator – https://konfigurator.audi.at/cc-at/de_AT_AUDI/A/models?GrossNetSwitch=GROSS

    • Necmiye Yagdi says:

      Hi Vanessa,

      I find your two examples are really well chosen!

      Web 1.0: I definitely agree with you that is a company of phase 1.0. The website shows only information about what they are offering. Also the company doesn`t have an interaction on their website where customers could share content, they could only read the information on the website.

      Web 2.0: Very interesting, I didn’t know the blog before. I think it is a good example for phase 2.0, because Farina Opoku and her team talk about beauty, fashion, lifestyle and travel. They share their content and they have also a community where followers could also comment. The fact that they have a mobile website, which means that followers can also visit the website conveniently from their mobile phone, stays for phase 2.0.

      Web 3.0: I like your example for web 3.0! Honestly I`m not sure if it is an example for web 3.0 because there is no robotics, virtual or augmented reality behind it. You are right that by configuring an Audi you have an internet experience because it was designed so realistically, but it is not something virtual or augmented reality. It would be for example if I wear virtual reality glasses to configure my Audi.

    • Necmiye Yagdi says:

      Hi Vanessa,

      I find your two examples are really well chosen!

      Web 1.0: I definitely agree with you that is a company of phase 1.0. The website shows only information about what they are offering. Also the company doesn`t have an interaction on their website where customers could share content, they could only read the information on the website.

      Web 2.0: Very interesting, I didn’t know the blog before. I think it is a good example for phase 2.0, because Farina Opoku and her team talk about beauty, fashion, lifestyle and travel. They share their content and they have also a community where followers could also comment. The fact that they have a mobile website, which means that followers can also visit the website conveniently from their mobile phone, stays for phase 2.0.

      Web 3.0: I like your example for web 3.0! Honestly I`m not sure if it is an example for web 3.0 because there is no robotics, virtual reality or augmented reality behind it. You are right that by configuring an Audi you have an internet experience because it was designed so realistically, but it is not something virtual or augmented reality. It would be for example if I wear virtual reality glasses to configure my Audi.

  18. Hani Mattar says:

    Web 1.0 : Baldauf Käse – http://www.baldauf-kaese.de
    Web 2.0: Envato Elements – http://www.elements.envato.com
    Web 3.0: Digi Iot Solutions – http://www.digi.com

    • Ana Karen Schmidt-Valois says:

      Hi Hani,

      I was looking in your option for Web 1.0 and I am not totally agree with you that we can consider it as Only read website. My reasons are just two:

      1. The website is linked to their web shop (web 2.0)
      2. The website is connected with Facebook and Instagram

      I hope my comment was helpful


      Ana Karen Schmidt-Valois

  19. Necmiye Yagdi says:

    Web 1.0: Abc Copyshop https://abc-kopierzentrale.de/
    Web 2.0: 21 Buttons https://de.21buttons.com/
    Web 3.0: Mathäser 3D-Cinema https://www.mathaeser.de/

    • Stefanie Heinzmann says:

      Hey Necimye,

      Web 1.0: In my opinion the ABC Copyshop is an example for the World Wide Web 1.0 phase. The customer can “read only”. The Copyshop website contains short information to the products (e.g. Handout, digital pressure, poster pressure), contact details such as employee, telephone number and location. There are only a few interaction possibilities: e.g. e-mail address.

      Web 2.0: The company 21 Buttons is a Social Web that allows reading and interaction. On the website the user can search for information and additionally buy some products online. I couldn’t see any social media icons on the 21 Buttons UK site (www.uk.looks.21buttons.com), but if you search in Instagram or Facebook, you’ll find the 21 Buttons accounts. Therefore, the customer has the opportunity to interact directly and participate online with the company. To sum it up: I agree with your choice.

      Web 3.0: The Mathäser 3D-Cinema website allows the user to read and write. Starting with all information about current movies and prices, as well as the possibility of interaction on Instagram and Facebook. I’m not quite sure about the “execute” part. The cinema uses 3D in the cinema by mixing the real world with the virtual reality, but I couldn’t find an augmented and virtual reality online. Furthermore, I do not know if they use machine learning on the website. For this reason, I have trouble agreeing with you that the website is semantic web and a web 3.0. But I agree that the business model is an example for a 3.0 phase company.

      In a nutshell your companies are very good examples for phase 1, 2 and 3.

    • Hani Mattar says:

      Hi Necmiye,

      Web 1.0: ABC Copyshop is a typical example of web 1.0. It displays information with minimal interaction with the user. The website consists of text and images that looks ok but does not provide any special journey. The creator of the website pre-assumed what the customer wants and provided him with all the information in one place at once.

      Web 2.0: 21 Buttons is also a good choice of Web 2.0. The login feature is the first point of contact where information is transferred between 2 parties. From what I understood, the user can tag items and earn money depending on the sales they get through them. Which means that the website allows users create their own content and upload them through the platform.

      Web 3.0: Mathäser 3D-Cinema, I was slightly confused by this example. The website does not have web 3.0 features but the idea behind it somehow does. I feel that the website is web 1.0 with an idea of web 3.0 combined together, this is mainly what made it confusing.

  20. Jazib Jawaid says:

    1) Web 1.0: Ciao Ragazzi Pizza https://pizzeriaciaoragazzi.de/
    2) Web 2.0: Zalando https://en.zalando.de/
    3) Web 3.0: Obsessar https://obsessar.com/

    • Ana Karen Schmidt-Valois says:

      Hi Jazib,

      Well done with your options for web 2.0 and 3.0

      But I am not totally agree with you option for web 1.0 for the following reasons:

      The web site have videos (Web 2.0)
      The web site are linked to Facebook (Web 2.0)
      They have a interactive google map (Web 2.0)
      You can share the photos and videos which are in the website

      I hope my comment can be useful for you


      Ana Karen Schmidt-Valois

      • Jazib Jawaid says:

        Hi Ana Karen,

        Thanks for your comments.

        I had some doubts with https://pizzeriaciaoragazzi.de/ (Web 1.0) and now I have found an old website https://www.spacejam.com/ from 1996 for web 1.0. Let me know if this website is a suitable option for web 1.0.

        Jazib Jawaid

      • Janina Lennefer says:

        Hi Jazib,

        I like your ideas for the different web phases.

        I actually think Ciao Ragazzi is a good example for Web 1.0. It is not a social platform or evocates any interaction between users. Also the video is purely informal and requires no social interaction or communication. It is not a the “read-write” web hasn’t the ability to contribute content and interact with other web users – so Web 1.0. Just the link to Facebook also doesn’t make it Web 2.0, the Web 2.0 is Facebook – the platform/Web where you finally interact/communicate with others.

        Zalando is in my opinion a perfect example for a Web 2.0. There are different components like social interaction, communication and the user can contribute content to the website, i.e. user ratings.

        With the adaption of VR in the shopping process, Obsess makes a good example for Web 3.0.

        Good job & best regards,
        Janina Lennefer

  21. Sophia Böckmann says:

    Web 1.0: Trattoria Donna Maria – http://www.trattoria-donna-maria.de
    Web 2.0: Pinterest – https://www.pinterest.de
    Web 3.0: FitBit-Application – https://www.fitbit.com/de/app

    • Jazib Jawaid says:

      Dear Sophia,

      Great selection with all three web examples.

      The example of Trattoria Donna Maria is a great Web 1.0 example for a static website whose sole purpose is all about the read only information of the restaurant with no on time interaction.

      Pinterest, a good website/app to advertise ideas and products and to get feedback. It is a very good Web 2.0 example with on time comments options, personalized widget builder, online help center and social media link on discover section.

      Fitbit is also a great Web 3.0 example but for that you need to have a device which track and collect data of your health and fitness routine later show it on your app dashboard/website account.

      Jazib Jawaid

    • Nico Klein says:

      Hello Sophia,

      I think you have chosen three very good examples, since they all contain the most important characteristics of the respective web phases.

      Web 1.0: I completely agree with you that the website of the “Trattoria Donna Maria” restaurant is a classic example of Web 1.0, as it only contains information from the company. Furthermore, the website neither allows interaction between the company and customers, for example in the form of feedback, nor can customers exchange information with each other on the homepage.

      Web 2.0: I also fully agree with your choice of “Pinterest” as a Web 2.0 example, as it is a social media platform that focuses on the interaction between its users. In addition, the website is always mobile and accessible on all devices, so that the community can exchange information with each other independent of location and device, which is also a characteristic of Web 2.0.

      Web 3.0: I also agree with your choice of “FitBit” as a Web 3.0 example. Even though it does not create VR elements, “FitBit” acts as a personal assistant, which derives recommendations from a large amount of data using AI algorithms, or responds to the user’s wishes. Even if a physical product is required, in my opinion, the company has many characteristics of the web 3.0 phase.


  22. Jazib Jawaid says:

    Web 1.0: Ciao Ragazzi Pizza – https://pizzeriaciaoragazzi.de/
    Web 2.0: Zalando – https://en.zalando.de/
    Web 3.0: Obsessar – https://obsessar.com/

    • Inès Kana Guendia says:

      Hi Jazib,

      I like the companies you have hosen for each phase.

      Web 1.0: I agree with you till a certain point that this website belongs to Web 1.0 because it shows the most relevant information that customer want to know. Nevertheless, there’s a possiblity for customers to contact the restaurant on the website via Instagram. Initially, in Web 1.0 websites should just deliver information without giving possibilities for interaction.

      Web 2.0: Zalando suits well the Web 2.0 due to the presence of information and possibility to contact the company. Also, they invite customers to interact by posting their social media accounts on the website. However, customers can’t comment the blog of Zalando.

      Web 3.0: I agree completely with you that Obsessar is part of Web 3.0. I like the concept of uniting VR-Technology with E-Commerce to enhance customer experience. This kind of business will probably be more present in the future since there is a lot of interest in it for different organizations.

  23. Denis Gimber says:

    Web 1.0: skp architekten (small local architecture company)
    Web 2.0: Engadget (technology blog network for gadgets and consumer electronics)
    Web 3.0: HTC VIVE (virtual reality headset developed by HTC and Valve)

    • Caroline Stoiber says:

      Hi Denis,

      I can very much understand why you have chosen the website of skp architekten as your example of Web 1.0. It is a classical example of a “read-only”, informative website, like it is nowadays rarely to be found, like I experienced when looking for an example. There is no possibility for potential customers to interact with the website, create content or communicate to the producer of the information (other than a simple contact page). The clean and very simplistic layout of the page, with just a few static pictures furthermore speaks for its placement in the Web 1.0 era.

      Your Web 2.0 choice of Engadget is also very fitting in my opinion. The platform offers various different forms of news coverage on all sorts of technology related topics, such as podcasts, reviews, videos and blogpost. A saw that under the tab “Contribute” users are able to add content to the website and hence be part of the production of information. They can comment, send tips to the producers, interact with other readers and repost articles on social media directly from the site. Another feature that makes this page a Web 2.0 example is the fact that the platform can be followed and subscribed on different applications such as twitter, YouTube, Snapchat, Spotify and many more.

      The website of HTC Vive is very much fitting for the main product it is promoting, the virtual reality headset. With their website, the company manages to give the potential customers a good grasp of what it could be like to have such a device. Product descriptions are animated, moving images underlined with realistic videos. The feature “Test your product today” allows interested customers to search on a map for nearby stations placed at technology stores where the device can be tested and bought. However, I feel that a company dedicated to the technology of virtual reality could in fact include even more interactive features on their website – nevertheless I understand why you have picked this example and consider it as a great choice.

    • Nico Klein says:

      Hello Denis,

      from my point of view, you have chosen three very good examples of the different web phases, each with important characteristics of the phases.

      Web 1.0: “Skp Architects is a good example of Web 1.0, as the company only displays information there. There are no links to social media networks or blogs, nor is it possible to interact with the company, which is also a characteristic of the Web 1.0 phase.

      Web 2.0: I also agree with your choice of “endgadget” as Web 2.0 example. The website allows users to both inform themselves about new things and to react and interact with the articles. The company also uses social media channels to get the reactions and feedback from the US people on their contributions and to actively take action on them.

      Web 3.0: In my opinion, “VIVE” is a very good example of a Web 3.0 company. It expands the reality of the user through its VR products and creates many new possibilities. In addition, the boundaries between reality and the virtual world are increasingly disappearing, which is also defined as a characteristic of a Web 3.0 company.


  24. Ana Karen Schmidt-Valois says:

    Web 1.0
    Doris (textile cleaning service)

    Web 2.0
    Victoria’s Secret (lingerie retailer)

    Web 3.0
    Plink (payments platform)

  25. Caroline Stoiber says:

    Web 1.0: Suckfüll (German, local hardware building supply store)
    Web 2.0: Jameda (platform for doctors and patients, where doctors can be found and rated)
    Web 3.0: L’Oréal Paris – Virtual Try On (virtual make-up tool where potential customers can try on different makeup and hair styles live or using pictures of themselves)

  26. Nico Klein says:

    Web 1.0: Schwamborn Sondermaschinen GmbH (mechanical construction company)

    Web 2.0: Kleiderkreisel (online clothes plattform)

    Web 3.0: Niantic (AR gaming apps producer)

    • Denis Gimber says:

      Hi Nico,

      Quite interesting selection of examples for the Web phases.

      Your first example, the webpage of “Schwamborn Sondermaschinen” looks like a modern Web 1.0 Page in my view. There are several indicators that point to this Web Phase: the page suggests a mostly read-only function. Furthermore, the company itself is the focus of the page. The webpage should provide information about the products and services and establish contact with potential customers. The content of the website is also almost fully company-owned. If you look at all these indications, it becomes clear that this is a Web 1.0 page. Good job!

      The example “Kleiderkreisel” is obviously a Web 2.0 page. Since it is an online trading platform, there is a community focus, which indicates the Web 2.0 phase. The platform enables the exchange, sale, and gifting of clothing and accessories by using a mobile app or the web browser. As a user, you read the article description and can ask/write questions – so there is a read-write interaction. They also offer a community forum. One aspect that is usually characteristic of Web 2.0 page, the social media integration, is missing at first sight. It is not possible to share the offered articles with other people via social media platforms. Nevertheless, a very appropriate example of this phase.

      Your Web 3.0 example “Niantic, Inc.” is a good selection for this phase. Niantic became famous through the development of augmented reality mobile games like Pokémon Go. AR is a clear indicator of the Web 3.0 phase. The website itself is portable usable and offers a “smart” application. However, some elements on the website, such as social media links, can also be identified from the Web 2.0 phase. But the application they provide refers to the behavior/engagement of the user. The devices, which the application is made for, interact with each other, but the application is not yet screenless usable. But in my mind a clear example for a Web 3.0 service – Well done Nico!

      Kind regards

    • Caroline Stoiber says:

      Hi Nico,

      I can see why you have chosen the website of Schwamborn Sondermaschinen GmbH as your example for the Web 1.0 era. It is clearly not an interactive website, but simply gives all the information about the company and its products. Users can not really interact actively with the producer – however do have the possibility of contacting the owners via email or phone. Although visuals are static, there are quite many of them which leaves me to say that I would not place this website in the ‘extreme’ Web 1.0 area.

      Your Web 2.0 example, Kleiderkreisel I am very familiar with. As I use it from time to time myself, I know that it is based on and lives from the interaction of its users. The users are the ones that create content on the platform, and Kleiderkreisel simply delivers the structured environment for content creation. Furthermore, Kleiderkreisel is a very good example of a company based on the concept of a sharing economy – a concept where users act in a social, interactive manner. From using the platform, I know myself that for many users is is also a place for self creation and realization, as profiles can be individualized and users can add their person touch. Great example!

      Niantic, your Web 3.0 example, I did not know before – but of course I know one of the games that was developed with their technology: Pokemon Go. Their mindset and goal is to combine the real world with the digital, virtual world, a goal that is very fitting to the Web 3.0 phase. Users of their games and platforms can interact with each other in an augmented environment with just using their personally owned devices. I really like this example as it perfectly depicts where we stand today and how ‘touchable’ AR already is for each and everyone of us.


  27. Caroline Stoiber says:

    Web 1.0: Suckfüll (German, local hardware building supply store)
    Web 2.0: Jameda (platform for doctors and patients, where doctors can be found and rated)
    Web 3.0: L’Oréal Paris – Virtual Try On (virtual make-up tool where potential customers can try on different makeup and hair styles live or using pictures of themselves)

    • Denis Gimber says:

      Hi Caro,

      I really like the selection of your websites for the different web phases.

      The webpage of the hardware store “suckfüll” is a typical example of a Web 1.0 website. It is a mostly read page with the company in focus. The website gives me just the most important information about the products and services of the company. Most of the text content and even the photos are at first sight the companies owning content. The page even shows a directory in the upper left corner. These are all indicators of a Web 1.0 site – well done!

      Your Web 2.0 example Jameda is a german doctor rating portal. The interactions between reading and writing are definitely given. There is also a strong community focus within this web page, because the users rely on the ratings of other people – the community. A sharing function for social media interactions is not available, but they linked their social accounts at the bottom. If you access the page with your mobile phone, you will get an optimized view. This definitely points to the Web 4.0 – mobile web. I think the website is a good example of a Web 2.0 page – well done.

      Your example of L’Oréal’s virtual make-up tool for a Web 3.0 page is a quite cool new feature. The application on the page uses augmented reality to project make-up virtually onto a photo or the live image of the computer/phone camera. In my opinion, this is absolutely a technology of the Web 3.0 phase. The application is personal, portable usable and aims at an individual focus – more indications for the Web 3.0 phase. However, I find it generally difficult to clearly identify a Web 3.0 page, as it is difficult to recognize a semantic markup. Furthermore, it is not possible to use this feature screenless. Nevertheless, I consider your example suitable for the Web 3.0 phase.

      Kind regards

  28. Janina Lennefer says:

    Web 1.0 – Website: Aubenhausen – Home of the dressage horse

    Web 2.0 – Blog/Social Web: The Equestrian Tech

    Web 3.0 – AI/VR/AR: hylofit (Smart health devices)

  29. Inès Kana Guendia says:

    Web 1.0: Zöttl (German bakery franchise)

    Web 2.0: Weverse (Social media app for fans)

    Web 3.0: Samsung – SmartThingsHub (Smart devices for the smart home)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 829 other followers

Flat World Poll
  • 595,202 hits
%d bloggers like this: