MDA’s IDM Jamboree

And on another note, regarding Kevin's remarks about NCB and IDA's plans for Singapore to be an intelligent island - something I have to take to task.

While we should seek to question, we should never question to sensationalise.

Masterplans are part and parcel of any government's work. The definition of 'intelligent island' changes as technology progresses, so it is not surprising for masterplans to have a time horizon, to be refreshed.

Indeed, Singapore has become more of an 'intelligent island' over the past years. Yet, we cannot stop and sit on our laurels. We're still behind South Korea and Japan on broadband penetration and speeds, and whatever other metrics that matter (to the government at least).

So watch what we say in the future, for fear of becoming another Mr. Brown.

Be warned, not sorry :-)

Let's drop the Web 3.0 hang up and focus on more critical issues at hand.

Bjorn, well said. I see some of our rants made it to your post :-).

I also agree with Kevin on producing passionate engineers, be it hardware or software. However, given the swarms of lower-wage equally-high quality and 'hungrier' engineers from India and China, I can imagine few Singaporeans want to pursue this career path, for fear of future career prospects. Not to mention how our govt loves to champion engineering one moment, and life sciences the next! The school-going gang ends up changing gears at the beck and call of our country leaders. I understand our need to constantly reinvent and stay ahead. Our inability to 'stop and smell the roses' ends up limiting our pool of well-rounded, risk-loving individuals who produce the next Googles and Skypes of tomorrow. Heck, we don't even have good product/industrial design courses in Singapore!

As a result, our best and brightest geeks and nerds end up either:

1) Get lured by better prospects in other countries
2) Stop nerding/geeking around and study finance/acctg/banking or join MNCs - the 'safe' route
3) End up in government one way or the other (scholarships, apply for the iron rice bowl) and lose that passion and fire they initially had

The government should just do a CFC and put upfront a large pot of $$$, say S$1B, and ask the pte sector how to use the $ to achieve whatever the objectives they have in mind, instead of trying to do it themselves. Takes all the red tape, claims and grants ($ that startups can't afford to pay upfront and claim later), yadda yadda out of the equation.

K.I.S.S.

Do you guys even read the comments before posting?

Web 3.0??? My toes are laughing.

~15 years ago, NCB vision was for Singapore to be an intelligent island in 10 years time.

Just last year (2006), IDA vision is still to be an intelligent island in 10 years time.

Let's get back to the basic to talk about Software Engineering before we encourage our young graduates and undergraduates to dream about entrepreneurship.

We are producing more and more entrepreneurs wannabe and too few passionate software engineers. It's passion that drive innovation, not money.

do those who hype about web N.0 even know what it is about?

how can any industry be created to cater to a list of standards and best practices drawn by web authorities?

What we should be concerned here is not that of terms for these terms themselves (as several have point out) have not been well-defined. Rather, we should focus on that of the building of the interactive digital media hub, and look at what MDA has in store for Singapore in that area.

But having said that, SG Entrepreneurs apologize for any misunderstanding that might have occured. We take full responsibility for having interpreted MDA's IDM project as that of an interactive digital media hub and that of the encouragement of a Web 3.0 industry. (Read: SG Entrepreneurs coined this term! =P )

This is just plain sad. Our government apparently subscribes to hype.

Web 3.0?????? Funny.

I guess geeks are the authority in the definition of web 3.0, but not the govt in a country where web 2.0 is struggling hard to define its shape.

or is it just a catchword to attract ppl to attend the talk? lol

Bjorn,
you really said it all and I do agree with you.

there's no such thing called web 3.0 yet. i am attending this event to see just how the govt defines web 2.0 before we attempt to jump the whole world and create this fictitious web 3.0. even the website is a joke. its so web 1.0 and they still use antiquated terms of no relevance to the subject matter.

this almost looks like another initiative by some harried civil servant who pulled together a bunch of kakis from the other ministries and show they are all collectively putting effort in doing something.

I rant alot here, i know, but the way the government is trying to launch this fund shows they are simply out of touch in trying to understand what really matters in trying to spur innovation here. those who will create any web3.0 already exist. And i think none of these people are inspired enough by the promise of what this web 3.0 can do to them. I might be jumping the gun before i go to this event but i will seek to offer some suggestions.

For starters, dun get government to push it. Get industry leaders, academics, foreign thought leaders from technological hubs in israel, silicon valley and speak here. if they have 500 million to spend eventually, they can spend a few million trying to do this right for once. Get any warm body the innovators, the engineers, the entrepreneurs, will respect, NOT govt officials. Unless this is an internal fund for only civil servants, no one is going to listen to some civil servants step up that podium and gladly oblige to follow the commands. Singapore's culture may be paternalistic but all kids grow up eventually.

I don;t know whether this fund's managers actually pondered the root to the lack of innovation here which is why we have no notable web 2.0 enterprises of note. The real problem is the engineers and comp science students in singapore flocking to the more financially stable industries of Finance and Banking. Without real efforts put into university admin and policies, in trying to convince sociological and psychological mindsets of our nation's brightest engineers, this is the brain drain a fictional Web 3.0 industry in Singapore will face. And this is a chronic cancer no cure seems imminent at present. We need to make this industry more glamorous. Which does not mean more lame advertising campaigns depicting the computing industry as sexy or anything. It means putting more money into the promising startups we already have, helping them hire good talent from local and especially overseas. More importantly, we need to inspire and fertilize the ground. We need to find what ever minor successes we have in the current generation of web entrepreneurs and cultivate them as role models through the media. Influencing the public is key here and also in expanding job options to the educational institutions in polys ITEs, and the unis.

THe only web "successes" we have so far is? I might be ignorant but only HArdwarezone.com came to mind and they were bought for a paltry SG$7 million. how is that going to inspire any potential local web3.0 entrepreneur to start up? I think this is a question begging to be asked. 500 million from the govt coffers might be huge, but it will not displace the importance nor influence of the VC industry which will be begging to ask whether any future valuations of startups in this region deserve funding after the HWZ precedent.

Gabriel, you make a good point.
unless gov is willing to invest in developing culture of innovation which may not profit-orientated but passion-orientated, the gov can forget about web 2.0 and above. It is not about money and dollar, it is about passion, geek, freedom and creativity. Gov will gain credibility if they build the foundation first before jumping to advance level. One don't learn to fly before it learn to walk. And one don't expect web 3.0 to take off by just dumping money into business run by business man. Web 2.0 is made and defined by technologist not business-man, and web 3.0 is probably still is.

That's pretty arrogant of the gov to capitalize on the web moniker when they don't even define it earlier on and try to create a new moniker rather. First of all, for it to be taken seriously, gov has to serious about it and not giving "lame" investment. Everyone in the industry know that investment is pretty markup, and $500m is money that is said but never fully materialise. How is money spend in the past, and what is return of investment? Is money normally directed to ppl of connection or to promote entrepreurial activities. What is the success of a company that is governed by so many red tape ???

I'm curious to find out too, but unfortunately all these question is under OB (out of bound) or rather extremely hard to get information about.

I do hope gov really understand the web before it define it in its own term. It pretty embarrassed for a advanced country to announce something that they have no showing for. It should not be about talk and seminar, concept and idea, and definitely not about dumping money onto sure-made-profit product or service. Web 2.0 and above shall be about innovation and creativity to define new market and potential.

Sounds interesting. I'm interested to know what the MDA has in store.

But before we talk about the growth of a "Web 3.0 industry"...do we have much of a Web 2.0 industry here in the first place? Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to jump the gun when it comes to "Web 3.0".

On another note, the timing of the event is pretty bad. We need to work on Wednesday, don't we?

lame indeed, web3.0 never sounded lamer as a moniker with only govt agencies pushing for it, i m sure innovation's not going to be part of it.