web 1.0


GREYFIELD takes a nap, you wont BELIEVE what happens next!!!1

Hello, here I am again! 

I apologize for not posting in quite a while. I have been having some problems with high school and also some personal issues, so I sorta didn’t have the time.

I logged in today and was in shock to see the amount of notes and the amount of followers I got. It might not be much for some for all I know, but this was more than I could ever imagine. Thank you guys :)

The gif is a bit relevant to my recent absence from here, but I also posted it because I have a sort of a fetish (not a sexual one obviously) for older webpages of the internet and things like that. And the sheer sadness from dead blogs and webpages that just stopped updating. Also, web 2001-2008 is really aesthetic in the wide spectrums of designs (and also a lot of weird webpages) and various content posted. A good example is the now mostly-dead Geocities, only available in Japan.

So, anyway, I want to thank everybody who followed me because it really means a lot. I hope the content I post is relevant to the topic and that you guys enjoy it. You’re the best! :)

Also, I’ve noticed of some issues with the theme. I’ll get to solving them right away.


Yo check out what I got today! It’s a book from the early 90s that attempts to list every person online with their email address, in the manner of a phone book. This was to be the first in series, but they never released a “1995″ edition much less a later one. Not sure if the free update mailings ever happened either.

Take a close look at the listing pages - you’ll see that they listed people with obviously fake names like “Im Not Iron MAN” as if Man was the last name.

This is close to peak web 1.0.


I stumbled on a 12 year old shrine dedicated specifically to Munkustrap from the musical Cats. It existed for a month before it stopped updating, but still managed to receive several messages, awards, and submitted fan fiction.

There is absolutely nothing more mysterious to me than the original online Cats fandom.


KQED ARTS: Celebrating the Bright Lights, Big GeoCities of the Early Internet

Graphic designer Helen Tseng and AI policy researcher Tim Hwang share an enthusiasm for under-celebrated, hiding-in-plain-sight topics, so it’s only fitting that the subject of their latest collaboration is a shared love for the early internet.

Internet! A Retrospective, on view Oct. 22 and 23 at San Francisco’s SPUR, brings together artworks, speakers and objects tied to the scrappy era of Web 1.0, a time when the possibilities of the internet seemed hindered only by the low bandwidth of our cranky dial-up modems.

Tseng says she sees the aesthetics of the early web everywhere in design right now — a mixture of nostalgia and unhistorical attraction — but without much acknowledgement of the original content.

Because unlike other mediums and moments in visual history, the early internet is pretty much completely gone. Every now and then you might stumble across a webpage that looks like it came straight out of 1996, but those moments are few and far between.



I’m on this seriously web 1.0 site and they have a place where the date is… but whatever widget they were using wasn’t y2k-safe????

Hey, it’s Monday, December 22, 114 all day long

like when the hell did they build this website where it didn’t occur to them the year 2000 would arrive at some point soon

The Next Big Thing Is Eating The Lunch Of Something That Was Big A Decade Ago

Someone who hasn’t fallen for George Orwell’s trope ‘whoever is winning now will always seem to be invincible.’

Here’s Why Google and Facebook Might Completely Disappear in the Next 5 Years - Eric Jackson via Forbes

In the tech Internet world, we’ve really had 3 generations:

  1. Web 1.0 (companies founded from 1994 – 2001, including Netscape, Yahoo! (YHOO), AOL (AOL), Google (GOOG), Amazon (AMZN) and eBay (EBAY)),
  2. Web 2.0 or Social (companies founded from 2002 – 2009, including Facebook (FB), LinkedIn (LNKD), and Groupon (GRPN)),
  3. and now Mobile (from 2010 – present, including Instagram).

We will never have Web 3.0, because the Web’s dead.

With each succeeding generation in tech the Internet, it seems the prior generation can’t quite wrap its head around the subtle changes that the next generation brings.  Web 1.0 companies did a great job of aggregating data and presenting it in an easy to digest portal fashion.  Google did a good job organizing the chaos of the Web better than AltaVista, Excite, Lycos and all the other search engines that preceded it.  Amazon did a great job of centralizing the chaos of e-commerce shopping and putting all you needed in one place.

When Web 2.0 companies began to emerge, they seemed to gravitate to the importance of social connections.   MySpace built a network of people with a passion for music initially.  Facebook got college students.  LinkedIn got the white collar professionals.  Digg, Reddit, and StumbleUpon showed how users could generate content themselves and make the overall community more valuable.

Yet, Web 1.0 companies never really seemed to be able to grasp the importance of building a social community and tapping into the backgrounds of those users.  Even when it seems painfully obvious to everyone, there just doesn’t seem to be the capacity of these older companies to shift to a new paradigm.  Why has Amazon done so little in social?  And Google?  Even as they pour billions at the problem, their primary business model which made them successful in the first place seems to override their expansion into some new way of thinking.

Social companies born since 2010 have a very different view of the world.  These companies – and Instagram is the most topical example at the moment – view the mobile smartphone as the primary (and oftentimes exclusive) platform for their application.  They don’t even think of launching via a web site.  They assume, over time, people will use their mobile applications almost entirely instead of websites.

We will never have Web 3.0, because the Web’s dead.

Web 1.0 and 2.0 companies still seem unsure how to adapt to this new paradigm.  Facebook is the triumphant winner of social companies.  It will go public in a few weeks and probably hit $140 billion in market capitalization.  Yet, it loses money in mobile and has rather simple iPhone and iPad versions of its desktop experience.  It is just trying to figure out how to make money on the web – as it only had $3.7 billion in revenues in 2011 and its revenues actually decelerated in Q1 of this year relative to Q4 of last year.  It has no idea how it will make money in mobile.

The failed history of Web 1.0 companies adapting to the world of social suggests that Facebook will be as woeful at adapting to social mobile as Google has been with its “ghost town” Google+ initiative last year.

The organizational ecologists talked about the “liability of obsolescence” which is a growing mismatch between an organization’s inherent product strategy and its operating environment over time.  This probably is a good explanation for what we’re seeing in the tech world today.

Are companies like Google, Amazon, and Yahoo! obsolete?  They’re still growing.  They still have enormous audiences.  They also have very talented managers.

But with each new paradigm shift (first to social, now to mobile, and next to whatever else), the older generations get increasingly out of touch and likely closer to their significant decline.  What’s more, the tech world in which we live in seems to be speeding up.

People forget how indomitable AOL seemed, and the promise of Netscape and MySpace, before they fell into the dustbin. As I have said before, Facebook is the new AOL, although Johnson is making a different case for that. I have been presaging the rise of social operating systems – which would invalidate Facebook’s near-monopoly on people’s social inclinations – while he points to the rise of mobile, and says

Considering how long Facebook dragged its feet to get into mobile in the first place, the data suggests they will be exactly as slow to change as Google was to social.

And that’s is not a good place to be.

I agree with Jackson: the rate of change is not slowing, so the monopolies of today are likely to be shorter-lived than those of even a decade ago. And the new world beaters are possibly companies that don’t even exist yet, but whenever they crop up we will first notice them when they start stealing users, market, and attention from the formerly indomitable killer apps of the preceding era.