Wired.com has recently posted an editorial titled “The Web is dead. Long live the  internet”. It sounds really weird in digital-boom times, doesn’t it? Let’s go deeper together…

According to the magazine the tipping point (as represented by CISCO graphic) is that browsing is decreasing, while other digital activities are increasing.


The first paragraph explains it well: “You wake up and check your email on your bedside iPad — that’s one app. During breakfast you browse Facebook, Twitter, and The New York Times — three more apps. On the way to the office, you listen to a podcast on your smartphone. Another app. At work, you scroll through RSS feeds in a reader and have Skype and IM conversations. More apps. At the end of the day, you come home, make dinner while listening to Pandora, play some games on Xbox Live, and watch a movie on Netflix’s streaming service.

You’ve spent the day on the Internet — but not on the Web. And you are not alone.”

Applications are useful tools to get what consumers need/want without wasting time on browsing. The digital approach has been changing from browsing to getting. In my opinion the Web is far from being dead, but it’s undeniable that Apps and new digital tools (smartphones, iPad, Kindle,…) have been revolutionising contemporary life. So probably Web, Internet and Apps will “live together” for a long time.

But according to this new digital scenery what should do brands to win the game?
First of all a brand should keep on covering the digital media which are consistent with its own brand personality and values. Moreover brands should create their own App. Many brands have created one, but so far they are just catalogues, shop locators, games, etc… The future is about an App that interacts, speaks and offers unique and relevant content and service to consumers. Apps that will “filter” through which consumers can discover, interact with and experience in the brand world. The more useful the App the more relevant it will be for consumers.

What App for FutureBrand?

Social tagging: > > >

3 Responses to WEB IS DEAD!

  1. Francesco says:

    I agree with you on graphic’s data reliability. I think that editorial is just a provocation.

    I don’t know apps data you quoted, but normally games and local applications have many connections to social network and web, they are always “open” apps.

    When people allow game to publish scores the game itself earns visibility on social networks.

  2. I was very frustrated with how misleading Wired’s graph was. I would have liked to seen total web volume, not just as a percentage. The volume of web traffic is increasing, even if it is decreasing as a percent of internet traffic. Also I would have loved to see a comparison of number of tasks or calls to a server. A video will move more bits than a web page, but that doesn’t mean it is more important than the web page.
    Thankfully, BoingBoing recreated the graph to address just these areas and shows a better representation of the data. You can see their version here:
    Clearly the web is anything but dead.

  3. Yeah, I read the article too.

    Yet another failed Wired attempt to be smarter than they are.

    Wireds argument failes with the graph, that you are showing above. Does it really require a graph saying that video of course use more bandwidth than text? On individual level and aggregated?

    According to PEW Internet Research we are spending more and more time on the “web” — being in a browser.

    Looking at the sales in e.g. iTunes App Store; most popular apps are not apps sold to connect, but rather games and apps used locally without any connectivity.

    I know Wired wants to make headlines; but as usual is BS.a

Leave a Reply