Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

The Greatest Defunct Websites and Dotcom Disasters

Posted by CmdrTaco on Thu Jun 05, 2008 10:33 AM
from the i-remember-everything dept.
NotableCathy writes "CNet has an interesting retrospective write-up documenting the most notable dotcom disasters and now-defunct Websites that were massive in their day, detailing what happened to them and what they led to. Nupedia didn't escape a slating (remember Larry Sanger's memoir?), or indeed Beenz, whose founder and CEO once said 'would become the universal currency, supplanting all others,' according to The Register seven years ago."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir 156 comments
Larry Sanger was one of the moving forces behind the pioneering Nupedia project. That makes him one of the people to thank for Wikipedia, which has been enjoying more and more visibility of late. Sanger has prepared a lengthy, informative account of the early history of Nupedia and Wikipedia, including some cogent observations on project management, online legitimacy, dealing with trolls, and other hazards of running a large, collaborative project over the Internet. As Sanger writes, "A virtually identical version of this memoir is due to appear this summer in Open Sources 2.0, published by O'Reilly and edited by Chris DiBona, Danese Cooper, and Mark Stone. The volume is to be a successor to Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution (1999)." Read on below for the story (continued tomorrow). Update: 04/20 19:19 GMT by T : Here's a link to the continuation of Sanger's memoir.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Thank God (Score:5, Funny)

    by name*censored* (884880) on Thursday June 05 2008, @10:38AM (#23668903)
    Thank God we live in the enlightened days of Web 2.0, in a bubble that will never burst!
    • by Tetsujin (103070) on Thursday June 05 2008, @10:50AM (#23669083) Homepage Journal
      Yes, there will be no more dot-com distasters for us!
      • Re:Thank God (Score:4, Interesting)

        by E IS mC(Square) (721736) on Thursday June 05 2008, @11:02AM (#23669265) Journal
        Well, one of the guys who made millions in the dot com boom is now making sure there are no more 9/11 disasters by writing books on terrorism: Craig Winn [wikipedia.org] of ValueAmerica [wikipedia.org].

        Read dot.bomb by David Kuo - a very interesting insider look into what all went wrong in a typical dot.com company.
              • Re:Thank God (Score:5, Interesting)

                by Z34107 (925136) on Thursday June 05 2008, @06:15PM (#23676021)

                Now, being a CEO is (really) different from managerial work, but I have an anecdote.

                My dad works for Proctor & Gamble. They hire almost exclusively engineers for every position. They figure it's easier to teach an engineer sales/managing/whatever than it is to teach a business type how to engineer. Heck, they pay for some people to get their MBAs - if you could handle an engineering degree, you sure as heck can handle business.

                Maybe not many geeks have business acumen - but it seems to be easier to pick up than geekery.

    • by thatskinnyguy (1129515) on Thursday June 05 2008, @11:11AM (#23669391)
      Yes. But the only thing that really changed is that the web is now funded with venture capital AND ads.
    • Re:Thank God (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) * on Thursday June 05 2008, @11:26AM (#23669609) Homepage Journal
      There will still be booms and busts, of course, but I do think people are a little wiser these days about how to make money on the web. (And no, I'm not talking about porn; anyone who, um, pokes around a little can find enough free porn to satisfy any appetite.) No amount of collective knowledge can save the truly stupid from themselves, but most folks do seem to realize that "... on the INTERNET!" is not in and of itself a recipe for making tons of cash. The truly successful dot-coms such as Google and Amazon and Ebay provide an example for internet business models that actually do make money, and smart would-be web entrepeneurs will study these few successes and (as well as the many, many failures) carefully.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Well there is a difference between "Web 1.0" and "Web 2.0" Web 2.0 wasn't ment to be the ultimate answer, just a tool to make it better. Back durint the .COM there was this strive to break all boundries change the world be the next multi-billionare. Now it is toned down. Making a web-site even a good one wont make you a billionare, you chances are just the same as any other company. (most companies are small under 100 employees) in which 90% of them fail in the first year. Yes we got some Web 2.0 big wi
  • beopen (Score:5, Funny)

    by gmack (197796) <gmack.innerfire@net> on Thursday June 05 2008, @10:40AM (#23668923) Homepage Journal
    Beopen.com .. Hired a full staff of reporters with the dream of competing with slashdot.

    When it ran out of money a guy I know came back with T-Shirts. Not the cheap ones you get at trade shows but solid fruit of the loom stuff that lasted me 7 years of constant use (I throw shirts out when they get their first hole) as it turns out that was longer than the company lasted in the first place.
    • so the company went belly up, but no one lost the shirts off their backs

      somewhere, a cliche has just died...
        • Re:beopen (Score:4, Informative)

          by peragrin (659227) on Thursday June 05 2008, @11:54AM (#23670069)
          That's just it the dotcom didn't plan 5 years out. heck they didn't plan 2 years out. Some of them took a billion dollars in venture captial spent it all inside of 6 months, grossed maybe $300 million in revenue, and suddenly realized they owed more money than the would make back in 5 years. They tried to start walmart or Home depot sized business overnight and then couldn't figure out why they failed.

          you want to start a business and even have some start up money to get going that's great. but you had better carefully plan out the next two years of bills that you know about. as if you start coming up short your screwed.
        • Re:beopen (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 05 2008, @12:12PM (#23670379)
          Wow, impressive way to misinterpret him, mock the strawman, and then give your own inaccurate assessment.

          GP was in part referring to the fact that businesses often expect revenues and profits to come much more quickly than they actually do and have not planned ahead for the initial stages of a start-up. For traditional small businesses, lack of sufficient capital is the main cause of failure for new businesses. I suspect that remains the case with web businesses, even if it sometimes could be more accurately described as over-valuing the worth of your product.

          The factors you mention are factors in the failure of a business, and it was a nice touch that you mock someone for talking about planning 5 years ahead and then list poor planning as your first idea of why most businesses fail. Five years may seem like a lifetime to you and the world of tech, but a solid business plan will almost always hold up over that long of a period without a huge amount change. (If you need to make huge changes to your business plan every year, you're probably in your death throes - even for tech companies.) Moreover, a business shouldn't expect profits for at least the first two years of its existence. Five years is a pretty short deadline to expect to get out of start-up mode.

          Of course, you can opt to say "It's the web" and then accelerate all of your deadlines by a factor of four. That worked well last time, and I'm sure it'll work well with Web 2.0.
  • The chairs were sweet!
  • Pets.com (Score:5, Interesting)

    by oahazmatt (868057) on Thursday June 05 2008, @10:44AM (#23669009) Journal
    I remember the Pets.com sock-puppet.

    Then I remember a commercial for "Bar None" credit, where an astoundingly similar sock-puppet declares "because everyone deserves a second chance".

    I have no idea if that was intentional or not, but it still makes me laugh to this day.
    • Re:Pets.com (Score:5, Informative)

      by Daver297 (1208086) on Thursday June 05 2008, @10:47AM (#23669035) Homepage
      that is the same sock puppet
    • Re:Pets.com (Score:5, Interesting)

      by IorDMUX (870522) <mark@zimmerman3.gmail@com> on Thursday June 05 2008, @12:09PM (#23670339) Homepage
      There was a similar (Amazon?) super-bowl commercial that showed the company's mascot riding on a donkey through a silicon-valley-esque ghost town of boarded up offices, broken glass, and whitewashed signs where only the ".com" was visible. On his way out of town, the mascot came across the limp Pets.com sock puppet (with X's for eyes) blowing in the wind. The commercial ended with a suggestion to trust the stable, surviving business [or something along those lines].

      ...so yeah. Obviously my memory is a bit faulty; this is one of my all-time favorite commercials, even if I can't remember the sponsoring company. Does anyone remember this commercial? Can someone fill in the blanks, here?
    • Re:Pets.com (Score:4, Interesting)

      by myth_of_sisyphus (818378) on Thursday June 05 2008, @06:42PM (#23676289)
      I worked at Pets.com.

      We had a huge number of orders from Alaska. I wondered why this was and checked out the orders. They were all mostly for 50 lb bags of dog food. And we offered free shipping. To Alaska. For 50 lb bags. I mentioned to someone that the shipping costs as much as the dog food. They stopped doing that.

      And then I worked in customer support for a few weeks--that was lovely. People called all the time asking us complicated dietary questions. And pet health questions. Ones that would stump a vet. It baffled me every time. Why would you put your beloved pets health into a guy on the phone from a web page selling dog toys?

      And one woman called from New York. She ordered a 50 lb bag of dog food and she said it was sitting outside in the hallway and what were going to do about that? I asked if she could get a neighbor to pick it up and bring it inside. She said "This is New York, nobody knows their neighbors." Then I said "I can get UPS to pick it up and return it to us." And she said "that would be fine. How long would it take?" I said "4 to 6 weeks." And she screamed at me. Prolonged screaming. I gave her to somebody else.

      A kid from an elementary school asked me how to tell if a rabbit was a boy or a girl. I found a good web page on "sexing rabbits." (Which is what the procedure is called.) I sent the link to the kid and I got called into an office and asked "why am I sending 'sex with rabbits' webpages to kids? I just received an angry call from a parent." I showed her the webpage--it was not 'having sex with rabbits' but 'how to sex rabbits' and showed a bunch of rabbit private part's pictures. I was off the hook.

  • I miss Dejanews (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tmark (230091) on Thursday June 05 2008, @10:46AM (#23669033)
    I know that Google took it over and still makes Usenet content searchable, but a part of me pines for the simple days when it was Usenet that contained the useful technical information we needed, and when Dejanews was the best way to get to it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      > part of me pines for the simple days when it
      > was Usenet that contained the useful technical
      > information we needed, and when Dejanews was
      > the best way to get to it.

      Noob. Getting a feed from someone was the best way, and second best was getting a login on a small machine that had the feed. Dejanews was the Harbinger of Death for Usenet.
  • Coincidentally... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Otter (3800) on Thursday June 05 2008, @10:48AM (#23669051) Journal
    GMail just served me up an ad for the book by a founder of theglobe.com. For the youngsters, previous dot-com IPO hysteria had centered on companies like Netscape, which had products, if not necessarily a reasonable business plan. theglobe.com [findarticles.com], a useless website that no one could explain exactly what it did, was worth $600 million at the end of its first day, breaking the first-day runup record previously held by the Broadcast.com IPO that left Mark Cuban as a permanent pain in the ass of our society. Henceforth, any idiot with a domain name and a copy of PageMill thought he should be a billionaire.

    Anyway, the founder wrote a book.

  • AllTheWeb.com (Score:5, Informative)

    by mlwmohawk (801821) on Thursday June 05 2008, @10:49AM (#23669069)
    bit for bit the best and most relevant search of the time. We went head to head with Google and we *HAD* better results with fewer duplicates.

    FAST could have been Google, it was better, but the upper management decided there was no real money to be made in web search.

    Alas, no matter how smart the engineers, or how good the technology, stupid management can screw up a free lunch. Unfortunately, win or lose, they *ALWAYS* get the pay off.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      alltheweb was good, agreed.

      However, the while google's search results were/are good, the key thing they twigged to earlier than most was how HUGE web advertising was, and how to monetise it. That could have happened in Norway with alltheweb, but it didn't.

      When google filed IPO documents people finally understood how HUGE web advertising was.

      --Q
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      FAST could have been Google, it was better, but the upper management decided there was no real money to be made in web search.

      Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't, but tell that to the investors. The free market said that Google's original business model wasn't good enough - the tech wasn't good enough apparently.

      Unless you have the money and you don't care about any sort of return, when you go into business, you must make a return on investment. And when you have investors, if you squander their money, they

  • ClubCastLive (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SIGBUS (8236) on Thursday June 05 2008, @10:50AM (#23669087) Homepage
    I miss clubcastlive.com - it had live webcasts of bands at various clubs in Austin, TX. Shortly after they appeared on one of the morning TV news programs, they vanished from the web - and the domain eventually got snagged by a squatter.

    I think bandwidth costs ate them alive - they streamed in 112 kbps MP3. I managed to snag a few shows before they went Tango Uniform.
  • CNet (Score:5, Interesting)

    by truthsearch (249536) on Thursday June 05 2008, @10:52AM (#23669115) Homepage Journal
    I'm surprised CNet't not defunct. So many parts of their sites are very hard to look at, including this one. It's a shame because I always felt they had such potential, but I really can't browse their sites. It's still hard to understand why CBS valued them so high with their purchase.
    • Re:CNet (Score:4, Informative)

      by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Thursday June 05 2008, @11:28AM (#23669647) Homepage Journal

      It's still hard to understand why CBS valued them so high with their purchase.
      The news.com domain was what CBS spent a metric pantload of money on. If it were attached to a dog groomer rather than an Internet company from the 1990s, CBS would now probably be grooming dogs while their management figures out how to best exploit the coveted domain.
  • Distasters! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Ai Olor-Wile (997427) on Thursday June 05 2008, @10:53AM (#23669135) Homepage
    Where does one submit resumes for becoming a Dot-com distaster? I find dot-coms to be extremely distasteful and I would like to share my experiences on the matter.
  • mp3.com (Score:5, Interesting)

    by alan_dershowitz (586542) on Thursday June 05 2008, @10:56AM (#23669177)
    Where the heck is mp3.com, the bright, shining, and defunct future of music distribution? I still have probably a thousand of free MP3s of cool bands I found through that site.
  • Remember... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SGDarkKnight (253157) on Thursday June 05 2008, @10:57AM (#23669195)
    AdCritic.com it was one of the best internet sites for getting all the lastest (and funniest) commericals from around the world. I remember when they closed down their site, they just got to big too fast and couldn't support themselves anymore... too bad, it was definatly one of the best.
  • Don't forget Pixelon (Score:4, Interesting)

    by futuresheep (531366) on Thursday June 05 2008, @10:59AM (#23669221) Journal
    http://www.theindustrystandard.com/article/0,1902,14183,00.html [theindustrystandard.com] $35 million from investors, and a $10 million launch party featuring acts like The Who, The Dixie Chicks, Kiss, and Brian Setzer. All this for a streaming video service that never worked so at demos they used a custom front end for Windows Media Services.
  • How, for the love of God, how....
      • I still wake up in a cold sweat sometimes screaming "I think I can see his kidneys, my eyes, my eyes!"
        • I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Moraelin (679338) on Thursday June 05 2008, @11:55AM (#23670093) Journal
          You know, I don't quite get it. I've seen bigger arseholes in upper management or on the cover of some management magazines, and noone gets a shock at seeing those ;)

          Well, now seriously, it was just an arse. Admittedly a rather stretched one, but I gather there must be _some_ demand for seeing that on a woman, judging by the whole category of porn and whole sites dedicated to it. I haven't heard of people reeling in shock after being exposed to almost seeing a <insert female pornstar>'s kidneys up her rear end after an anal scene. Or sometimes in the middle of it.

          Seriously, it wasn't the most appealing or aesthetically pleasing picture out there, I'll grant that, but I just can't figure out the _horror_ some people claim to have experienced seeing it. It seems a rather disproportionate response. You'd figure that a simple, "hmm, how's this relevant to the topic at hand?" and hitting the back button would be enough for all practical purposes. Horror or shock? Erm, why?

          Or was it just the implicit hint of homosexuality that gives the average male in some parts of the world the idea that he must seem properly outraged and horrified by it, lest someone might get the idea that he's gay too? Not trolling, just genuinely trying to figure it out.
          • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 05 2008, @12:46PM (#23671013)
            If you are jaded to seeing a guy with both hands buried with all 10 fingers deep in his ass, cranking it open directly in front of the camera like he was wrestling with an alligator's mouth, then you, my friend, really need to take a break from internet porn. Maybe stick to scat and dog fuckers before moving back on to Japanese enima sex and two girls with one cup.

            Could it be, that maybe YOU are the goaste man and are miffed at the negative response you've gotten from your skillfull anal theatrics?
  • Jenni Archives (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bikeidaho (951032) on Thursday June 05 2008, @11:07AM (#23669343)
    So where are the Jenni archive videos, especially bow-chicka-bow-wow? I know someone has them... come on, fess up.
  • Jenni-cam? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ucblockhead (63650) on Thursday June 05 2008, @11:16AM (#23669455) Homepage Journal
    How was that a disaster? The woman made a shit-load of money and got a shit-load of attention for no work.
  • APBNews.com (Score:3, Interesting)

    by commodoresloat (172735) * on Thursday June 05 2008, @11:16AM (#23669461) Homepage
    A daily fix of news about crime and criminal justice delivered with a sense of humor. You can look through the old ones using the wayback machine [archive.org]. It's a little like what thesmokinggun would have been with real editors and reporters. They went under around 2002 but it used to be one of my daily browsing spots.

    That and our own nofuncharlie [archive.org], which went under not because of lack of funding (there never was any in the first place), but because we let some domain-snatchers grab the domain out from under us....
  • What about Wireplay? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by thermian (1267986) on Thursday June 05 2008, @11:18AM (#23669497)
    No-one ever mentions Wireplay.

    When that first started it was, in my opinion, the best online gaming service available. For those who don't know you paid for a connection direct to their servers, not the internet, which made it the fastest gaming experience available in the pre broadband era.
    There were gaming leagues, prizes, admins/judges for all games,and the chatroom system was excellent. I don't think their chatroom system has ever been bettered in fact.

    All my best gaming memories come from my time as a Wireplay member. I even made skins for lots of clans who played in the leagues.

    There was sort of informal feel to the place too, The staff had a webcam in their office that let you watch them work, and they had a log that they wrote whatever came to mind in, who was off sick, what they'd got up to at the weekend, anything.

    I don't recall who bought them out, but sometime during the boom they got taken over, and everything turned to shit, somost of the people I knew quit and moved over to barrysworld leagues. I left shortly after the new owner assraped the chatroom system and wrecked its charm.

    Now I find that it exists as some sort of free affair, but it's not the same.

  • Kozmo.com (Score:4, Informative)

    by superdude72 (322167) on Thursday June 05 2008, @11:31AM (#23669697)
    I still miss Kozmo.com. With a few clicks you could have a sandwich, a pint of Ben & Jerry's, a Razor scooter, and some porn delivered to you in 30 minutes. Everything you need for the perfect evening! And no delivery charge.

    I kind of knew at the time that they'd never turn a profit, but it was nice while it lasted.
  • by garyrich (30652) on Thursday June 05 2008, @01:25PM (#23671651) Homepage Journal
    Maybe it's that the UK is too far away or that the writer doesn't get it personally. "Web site that sold groceries " was never the business model. They did that, but to paraphrase JFK "not because it's easy, but because it's hard". Once you can perfect getting fresh peaches delivered via an Internet order, everything else is easy.

    They were a tiered distribution company. They would have become a combination of Wal-Mart without the storefronts and UPS. Their two edges were

    1) dis intermediate all the retail outlets that all sell the same things. The profit margin in groceries is razor thin (again, they did the hard thing first). Eliminate the stores and employees, replace them with largely automated warehouses and drivers and you change the entire profit dynamic. Walmart.com and vons.com don't get this benefit since they still have to support physical storefronts. Amazon gets this benefit and does pretty well. People have figured out by now that Amazon isn't just an internet bookstore, Webvan died before it could get there.

    2)Use the internet as the front end of the business. That's pretty obvious.

    "Webvan -- none of whose senior executives or investors had any experience in the supermarket trade". Umm... yeah, that experience would have been useless since they didn't run supermarkets. They did have one of the main architects of Walmarts inventory and distribution system. They were damn good at what they did. If they had an unhappy customer I never met him.

    They died from dried up funding more than overspending (though they did that too). They were just about at the point of doing the "since we have a truck coming by your house anyway, why don't we also drop off your Netflix movie, next semester's textbooks and that creepy Rei Ayanami doll you ordered from Japan?". Without that Netflix has had to spend huge effort to get a (kick ass frankly) distribution system done via USPS. Amazon has their affiliate program where you can get all sorts of odd stuff from Amazon, but they don't have that "last mile" solved. If you order stuff in one order from 7 different affiliates you have to pay 7 different shipping fees and deal with 7 different shipments from different shipping companies. At least one of those shipments will get screwed up and one other will come from some shipper that won't leave it without a signature. Webvan was coming by your house anyway to drop off your groceries.

    And, yes, I did indeed ride a small position in WBVN all the way to $0.00. They could have been saved at any point and I still think they would be a huge company today.