Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses The Internet

Is 'Web 2.0' Another Bubble? 209

Posted by Zonk
from the pop dept.
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Two tech VCs, Todd Dagres and David Hornik, debate whether there is a bubble in so-called Web 2.0 companies looking to cash in on a resurgent online ad market. In the WSJ.com debate, Hornik writes: 'Venture capitalists will rationally stop investing in ideas that don't bear fruit. Those that do bear fruit will gain traction and either be acquired or go public. Those are the traits of a rational market in my mind.' Dagres responds: 'I think the Web 2.0 space will have a higher mortality rate than other segments of the overall media and technology industries. There are far too many MySpace and YouTube genetically challenged clones. All but a few will fail. The winners are generally the ones that get in early and out before the bubble bursts. There are rare examples of bubble companies making it through the bust and going on to become successful and valuable companies. By the way, the combined cash flow of Spot Runner, LinkedIn and Facebook is less than that of one Costco store.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is 'Web 2.0' Another Bubble?

Comments Filter:
  • by ScentCone (795499) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @06:33PM (#17392934)
    By the way, the combined cash flow of Spot Runner, LinkedIn and Facebook is less than that of one Costco store.

    I mean, have you seen a Costco on a Saturday before a ball game?
    • If I had to guess I'd say: Average receipt: $250 Customers per hour per checkstand: 10 Active checkstands: 10 Saturday hours: 8.5 250 * 10 * 10 * 8.5 ~= $200K total saturday cash flow
      • by Salvance (1014001) *
        You're not too far away. The average Costco sells $115Million in merchandise per week, or approximately $2Million per non-holiday week. Costco's (and other retailers) get about 20% of their weekly sales on a Saturday, which would mean ~$400K on average.
    • by Lanoitarus (732808) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @07:27PM (#17393438)
      By the way, the combined cash flow of Spot Runner, LinkedIn and Facebook is less than that of one Costco store.

      Cash Flow != Profit.

      Costco has a incredibly high cash flow and an absurdly minimal margin. So do grocery stores. Facebook, on the other hand, has what im willing to bet is a pretty high margin on its fundamental product. This has to be one of the most utterly stupid, biased, half truth lines ever.

      Heres an equally accurate (and equally misleading and biased) half truth in the other direction:
      Facebook has nearly 50 times the profit margin of a Costco, walmart, and target combined. Clearly Retail is a bubble about to burst.

      Id take Reaganomics over this kind of bullshit financial analysis any day.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Sparohok (318277)
        Costco earns a profit margin of about 2%. The profit margin of Facebook is probably negative.

        Costco earns an operating margin of about 3%. The operating margin of Facebook is unlikely to be higher than about 30%.

        So, whatever metric you use, your statement is almost certainly incorrect, whereas Mr. Dagres made a statement that is plausibly correct.

        He's not doing bullshit financial analysis. In fact it is textbook financial analysis to use cash flow statements as a bullshit detector. The cash flow statement
        • by radtea (464814)
          "I'll take cash flow over gross margin -- I can eat cash flow."

          Only if there's enough of it to pay off the costs of generating the cash flow in the first place.

          While no one number is sufficient to capture the financial health of an enterprise, an over-emphasis on cash-flow was one of the characteristics of the bubble investing in the late '90's. Cash flow management is critical to the success of a startup, but too often investors and managers focused on cash flow maximization at the expense of sustainabili
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by unother (712929) *
        It's not cashflow per se which determines the viability of a business; but in the world of finance cashflow will help determine exactly how liquid an operation is. His metaphor is, admittedly, a bit stretched... but when you compare the mindshare and proposed prospects these companies PR and Financial Advisors snow you in with, he is using a decidely utilitarian and "Old Economy" (note, this is no longer disparaged) method of determining potential for future health.

        You see: CASHFLOW is the incomings and ou
    • by Colin Smith (2679) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @07:29PM (#17393454)

      I mean, have you seen a Costco on a Saturday before a ball game?
      And people say Americans have no culture.

       
  • by phrasebook (740834) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @06:34PM (#17392950)
    And the only bubble to burst is the term 'Web 2.0'. The sooner the better.
    • by nate nice (672391)
      I have to mainly agree with this.

      It's nothing more than a buzzword of sorts at this stage.

      If it's surprising that the Internet would adopt new technologies and ideas, then whoever feels this way hasn't been in technology longer than a day.

      But, is anything in Web 2.0 even defined? Just what is it? The ability to communicate without a postback? Surely it's much more than that, right?

      I don't think this Web 2.0 thing has existed yet.

      I believe some people have ideas about what the Internet could/can and will
    • O'Reilly has trademarked "Web 2.0" [oreilly.com].

      The note about revenues compared to one Costco store is pretty sad. It makes me wonder where any of the other "blogger" "elite" sites stock up. I always deeply suspected that most of the "web 2.0" and "blogger" fad was just a giant San Francisco circle jerk by people who think far too highly of themselves [xeni.net].

    • The sooner it bursts the better as I hold the trademark to Web3.0, Web4.0, Web5.0
  • Seriously, that's pretty much all you can say about this.
  • Federal Reserve (Score:3, Insightful)

    by P3NIS_CLEAVER (860022) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @06:35PM (#17392960) Journal
    It's a bubble because the FED is printing too much money. Eventually foreign investors will figure it out and the dollar will go down the toilet. You've been warned.
    • by argoff (142580) * on Thursday December 28, 2006 @07:59PM (#17393668)
      It's a bubble because the FED is printing too much money. Eventually foreign investors will figure it out and the dollar will go down the toilet. You've been warned.

      I'm sorry, but this should be modded +5 insightfull, not -1 offtopic. The fed printed up a bunch of money, used it to buy US bonds (to finance the war in Iraq), and now people are supprised that the price of every commodity across the board has doubbled in the last 5 years. Well, hint hint, they haven't - in "real" terms it's the dollar that's gone down in value far more than the commodities that have gone up. The only problem is that they loaned out so much freaking money that now society is saturated in more debt than it can pay back. By any standard, the US is bankrupt.

      Well, guess what. They only have one choice: "print up money and buy stocks" and that's exactly what they've been doing. But it will fail for the same reason that any central planned economy fails, and it will be very very ugly. Forget stocks, people should buy gold and prepare for the US dollar not to be a currency anymore. It really is that bad.

      • Did you live through the 80s? If so, were you awake and/or at all aware of the U.S. economy?

        If so, I can only assume that you have no understanding of economics if you think we're so much worse off now.

        People gripe and moan about the failure of our education system related to the hard sciences, but compared to the social sciences such as history and economics the hard sciences are doing pretty good.

        • I have to disagree with you about that, both sciences, social and hard suffer from the same basic thing, a lack of the ability for ordinary people to engage in critical thinking. let's look at the great depression, the money system was deflated, unemployment was about 25%, pump up the debt and use the extra money to put people to work, the results was it cause inflation, and fixed the money system and ended the depression; next come the '80s the money system is inflated 6-8% inflation, unemployment is about
        • by argoff (142580) *
          Uhh, the 80's didn't have an account deficit of over 6% - I'm sorry but that's Argentina territory. Also, during the 80's they raised interest rates to 21% to halt a panic out of the dollar. If they do that today, the US economy will be ripped to shreds.
      • by Colin Smith (2679) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @09:29PM (#17394284)
        I reckon you're basically on the right track, but it's very unlikely to result in armageddon. What'll happen instead is that china, japan, opec etc will get tired of losing money on their dollar reserves and will diversify (are already diversifying) and start selling the US bonds, the dollar will fall further, interest rates will rise further.

        It will however balance out. China, Japan and OPEC can't simply dump 2-3 trillion dollars worth of bonds, they would be insane to do so. Instead they'll simply make Americans pay their debt. The US is just going to be saddled with high interest rates and high inflation for a while. At the end the dollar probably isn't going to be such a favoured reserve currency and Americans will have to work that little bit harder, just the same as the rest of the world.

        They do currently have another option. Stop printing money and start running a surplus budget.

        Oh Btw, the big problem isn't Iraq, that's just causing a gradual slide, it's the retirement of the baby boomers, we should start to see the effects fairly soon.

         
      • Hi from Canada,

        We're pretty scared that the Chinese will stop keeping the American dollar afloat (They have a static exchange rate) or that OPEC will make oil transactions in Euro's instead of U.S. dollars.

        If either of those happens we're going to be looking at a BIG BIG BIG recession.

        Don't take us with you plz! Just FYI! K Thx bai!
        • by Apotsy (84148)
          If the USA economy goes in the toilet, so will those of a lot more countries than just Canada. China for example will feel the pain too, since the US is a very large consumer of their goods. If the US can no longer afford to buy its products, there goes their double-digit growth rate.
        • by SRA8 (859587) on Friday December 29, 2006 @02:13AM (#17395886)
          Silly Canadians. You have enormous oil reserves. Guess what that means? It means we Americans will find some "evidence" or another to invade your country and take all your resources. All that war booty inflow will help us pay the debt on our treasury bonds for decades to come.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Opportunist (166417)
        As long as the US has the ability to "tax" foreign countries, all is well.

        How? By having the de facto international currency. Take a handful of dollars and you'll see that they are accepted as legal tender pretty much everywhere on the globe. Yes, even in countries like Iraq or North Korea. For the simple reason that those countries need Dollars for international trade, too.

        Pretty much every country on this planet has Dollar reserves. The price of internationally traded goods is given in USD, and more often
        • Lets take that a step further: what is keeping the dollar the "international currency?" The Petrodollar [wikipedia.org]. I don't think you're aware that you can only [wikipedia.org] buy oil for dollars (Iran is trying to change that though; Iraq tried guess what happened).
  • A bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Potor (658520) <farker1@gma i l .com> on Thursday December 28, 2006 @06:36PM (#17392972) Journal
    If the Web 2.0 is about user-generated content, is it a bad thing if it can't be monetized easily? I mean, I thought the point was our Web, our way?
  • High Startup Cost (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bonker (243350) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @06:39PM (#17392992)
    While I agree that we're probably about to have a minor watershed of dead web 2.0 companies, something that's often neglected is that websites are relatively inexpensive to maintain when compared to a brick and mortar location. You pay for bandwidth, new development, and storage.

    If managed correctly, this is far less expensive than maintaining a 'real world' location.

    If I were an investor, I wouldn't write off the Web 2.0 companies as a whole, but I would be leery of things like high salesman salaries, a large management to production employment ratio, and an absence of realistic business plans.

    We still have the best of the Web 1.0 bubble with us, and they're profitable. Five, ten years from now, we'll have the best of the Web 2.0 bubble with us and will be speculating about which of the 3.0 companies are next to go.
    • The whole thing smacks of business as usual to me. Lots of shitty companies with bad ideas flood into the market and die, and a few clever ones succeed. The same stuff happens in the 'real world'. The only difference is we don't call it 'Real World 2.0' every time the tides turn.

      Now, I'm not economist, but a lot of investors lost their shirts in the dot-bomb and going to be put off the technology sector all together. I'd say thats going to act as a mitigating factor. People aren't just asking whats the hot
      • Well don't forget all, or at least some the mad-money the was once the investor's shirts went somewhere, from what I understand the salvage equipment from the dotBomb is just now drying up; yet still it's good strategy to invest most of your money in rock-solid companies will proven and boring profit records, and to put a little bit in high risk whacko stuff that just might pay off instead of taking a vacation in Los Vegas.

        youtube and google is actualy a good fit google lives and breathes bandwidth manageme
    • by Shelled (81123)
      "...something that's often neglected is that websites are relatively inexpensive to maintain when compared to a brick and mortar location.."

      Possibly, however maintenance isn't start-up. Many of these Web 2.0 ventures are exactly that, capital ventures, and those are typically anything but lean and mean. My employer company jumped on the 'portal' thing with Excite a few years back and dropped $70 million, some on the typical Web essentials of designer chairs and oxygen dispensers, over
  • tagging beta: yes (Score:5, Informative)

    by mandelbr0t (1015855) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @06:43PM (#17393032) Journal
    If you have to ask...

    Web 2.0 looks to me to be the same as the .COM bubble. There's a bunch of hyped technologies, a bunch of consulting companies monopolizing the HR, a bunch of VC firms with slush funds to melt, and very few people that actually understand any of it. I don't see any changes to marketing or project hype; a presentation to my 2004 technical college class sounded like it was written by c.2000 .COM gurus. All in all, it seems to me that the Web 2.0 bubble is based on the same psychology as .COM: "Anybody who understands the technology is too dumb to understand the business".

    Let me try and expound on that last statement a bit; it is based on personal experience, not some knee-jerk reaction. I got hired as a consultant about 9 months before the .COM bubble burst. I knew a crap-load about CGI and server-side scripting and HTML and Unix and Apache and so on. They seemed to pay me well, until I took into account the down-time between contracts. Moving out of the IT industry didn't seem to be an option as long as I was in the recruiters' databases. On the bright side, I'm not so dumb about the business any more. The business is effectively this: "I don't know how to implement X, but I know how to bully some techie dweeb into implementing it for me for a tenth of what it's worth."

    All of the latest marketing and hype for Web 2.0 seems to have this same negative attitude about tech. dweebs. Geeks become slaves, IPOs go through the roof (but you can't afford the shares on a geek's salary) and companies sell vapourware. Projects go over budget, get extended, fire their entire team, hire more expensive consultants and extended again. The last contract I was at was still suffering from this crap. The product had been in development for 4 years by 2-3 people full-time, and I could still write a better version in 6 months by myself.

    If there was an obvious decline in corporate corruption, I'd say that Web 2.0 might not be such a bubble. AJAX and other "dynamic" approaches do offer a better end-user experience. Broadband content is commonplace. Blogging is popular. But the overall negatives vastly outweigh the positives. We need to stop thinking about technology as a short-term investment strategy, and consider the overall societal impact. I'm not in it for the IPOs myself; I hope those that are start to listen to the geeks. "Don't make me angry; you wouldn't like me when I'm angry" :P

    mandelbr0t
    • All of the latest marketing and hype for Web 2.0 seems to have this same negative attitude about tech. dweebs. Geeks become slaves, IPOs go through the roof (but you can't afford the shares on a geek's salary) and companies sell vapourware. Projects go over budget, get extended, fire their entire team, hire more expensive consultants and extended again.

      Huh? What? I mean, for the most part, what you just said was similar about the Web 2.0 bubble and the .com bubble is actually.... well it is what is different, not similar.

      Geeks become slaves? Well maybe here and there, but the Open Source movement is happening right along side the Web 2.0 movement.

      IPO's through the roof? Nope, not true. This bubble is more about being bought out than going public. Acutally, almost all the new about anything is a buyout, not a IPO.

      Companies selling vaporware? Not

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by mandelbr0t (1015855)

        Projects go over budget, get extended, fire their entire team, hire more expensive consultants and extended again? Examples? This sounds like a company looking to embrace Open Source, not some Web 2.0 thing.

        Hmmm. Actually, it was a company that embraced Microsoft. And they did that because they got tired of Sun. I'll admit that there's some truth to many of the points you brought up, but I stand by my corruption argument. And, in a strange way, you've proven the "geeks don't know business" argument.

        Try being a little cynical for a few minutes, and stay with me. The issue in this particular case was not how quickly the project could be done; in fact, there didn't appear to be much interest in creating a workin

        • And, in a strange way, you've proven the "geeks don't know business" argument.
          Well I own my own business and ran a 100% internet based retail site for well over a year. To say anyone does not "know business" is going to be right. You are speaking of a different part of business, one in which you are working for the man. I know what part of business I do know, but to say that me, as a geek, does not know business in general is sort of insulting.
    • by inKubus (199753)
      If everyone is doing something and making money, it's a bubble--if it has these characteristics:

      1. It serves no apparent useful purpose
      2. You don't see easily how anyone can make money doing it
      3. Everyone you know has made so much money doing it

      Anything that inflates to quickly will POP. The problem is that ANYTHING that makes money these days is pounced upon by get rich quick assholes who drive up prices and kill the whole thing. There's no such thing as an unsaturated market unless you innovate or in
  • Irrelevant (Score:3, Informative)

    by denoir (960304) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @06:47PM (#17393062)
    Ultimately a bubble or not is irrelevant. Today investments in Internet technology are considerably higher than they were during the peak of the IT boom. A boom-bust cycle is perfectly normal for the early stages of just about any technology. Short term expectations are usually inflated but the long term impact is consistently underestimated.

    Information technology is developed at an exponential pace - and we are nowhere near a saturation.

  • Just ads!?#@! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by recharged95 (782975) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @06:47PM (#17393078) Journal
    "surgent online ad market"

    Really, if all web2.0 is about ad supported services, then we are truly heading for a bust. Ads are like having prostitiution support your schools. Also, features such as "more collaboration" is great, but it not a revolutionary thing.

    Great, another fine use of all those MBA degrees on Wall Street.

    • by vertinox (846076)
      Ads are like having prostitiution support your schools.

      So if I use Ad block extension, it means I'm having sex with prostitutes for free?
    • Ads are like having prostitiution support your schools.

      Am I the only one who missed the connection here?

      • you mean like since our schools are all ready supported by the second oldest profession, gambling, we should add the world's oldest prostitution to the mix?
    • by AuMatar (183847)
      On behalf of prostitutes, I'm insulted. Prostitutes perform a service in exchange for money. Its a fair deal for all involved. Advertisers are slimeballs who steal your time with a web of lies and half truths, attempting to con you out of your money. I'd rather have prostitution support my schools than advertisements.
    • by Junta (36770)
      One, that analogy made zero sense.

      Two, ad supported media businesses do have precedent, it's called broadcast TV.
    • by Abcd1234 (188840)
      Really, if all web2.0 is about ad supported services, then we are truly heading for a bust

      You *do* realize that's what TV is all about, right?
  • Pretty much (Score:2, Interesting)

    by TodMinuit (1026042)
    I'm reminded of a Slashdot comment [slashdot.org] from a ways back:

    The new dot-com business are like donkeys chasing a carrot on a stick. They just keep on walking, never getting any closer to the carrot, but expending a lot of energy (money). They need some company to come along and give them the carrot.

    I call this "The Paul Graham Business Plan".
    • I do agree with the comment, but disagree with calling this the 'Paul Graham Business Plan'. Paul has dozens of essays on his site which propel entrepreneurs to do exactly the opposite - produce real value by solving tough problems. He's also very adament to raise very little money at first and that too much money can actually kill a start-up. Anyway, take a look at his site: www.paulgraham.com
  • by TheWoozle (984500) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @06:54PM (#17393148)
    Or will we call it Web2008? Maybe WebXP? How about WebDuo2?

    =P
  • 'I think the Web 2.0 space will have a higher mortality rate than other segments of the overall media and technology industries.'

    Wait a moment, the characteristics of a fast moving segment of the business world is that it moves faster than the other segments?

    Wow. I wish I could be an analyst.

    My prediction for 2007: Thirsty people will continue to buy water.
  • web 2.0 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dheera (1003686)
    there is no "bubble" in web 2.0.

    the point of websites such as facebook, youtube, digg, etc. are not to stay aronud forever. instead, the point is to take advantage of technologies and trends today (broadband, social networking on the web, etc.) to create something interesting for people.

    sure, ad revenue off a website is nothing compared to a costco store. but for paying a few hundred bucks to get your site colocated or hosted and then running ads, you can sit back, relax in a chair, and watch money pour int
    • Setting up a profitable site isn't "a few hundred bucks", and it's not a ``small'' investment unless you're a very small shop and working on your own (or with your friends) for ``free'' (on your own time).

      As soon as you start paying folks for work, it gets really expensive (a few good developers, consultants, sales folks, rent(!), and you're looking at a multimillion dollar operation---unless of course they work for peanuts, which most good developers don't).

      Also, the idea of `setting up something', and the
  • If Web 2.0 means sites that aggregate info that isn't boring, how can that fail? If it refers to sites like Facebook, where people can connect with real people, how can that fail, unless everyone is boring to everyone else? People go out of their way to find what interests them, but not TOO far out of their way. Minimizing the work of finding what is interesting--is that Web 2.0? Speeding up page-loads? Speeding up connect times to what is interesting? I don't see anything really new about the info availabl
    • If Web 2.0 means sites that aggregate info that isn't boring, how can that fail? If it refers to sites like Facebook, where people can connect with real people.....

      It's not the "connection" part that will fail, it's the economic part.
      Sure, you might make the best site ever, holding the most interesting collection of data of the whole universe. That does not mean that you will make enough money by selling ads. Also note that ads get in the way of when you intend to have faster loading times and going straigh

  • Old news... (Score:4, Funny)

    by UOZaphod (31190) on Thursday December 28, 2006 @07:18PM (#17393374)
    There's already several items regarding this showing up in my mashup, and I wrote about it in my blog, and I talked about it extensively in my podcast, and I updated the wiki. ...sorry, I can't go on. If I spew any more stupid buzzwords I won't be able to tell if I'm puking or not.
  • For some sites this is a bubble.

    TechCrunch makes $60,000 a month for just 2.5 Million page views. Thats $24 CPM ($ per 1000 page views), or 2.4 cents every time a page is rendered. This bubble will burst.

    The average joe is lucky to get $2 CPM. Which I think is much more reasonable.

    http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2 _archive/2006/09/01/8384325/ [cnn.com]
    http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s26techcrunch& r=33 [sitemeter.com]
  • We're not reliving 1999-2001, we're reliving 1996-1998. The difference is Google, Myspace and YouTube are actual phenomena, unlike Webvan or Pets.com. Myspace is possibly the most popular property on the Internet, and YouTube is the leader of video, which Tech/Telco/Media has been buzzing about for the last ten years. Ebay and Amazon, Internet success stories, are barely fighting off sites like Facebook, Craigslist, Wikipedia, and Blogger.

    Baidu, Digg, Flickr, Orkut, Tencent QQ, Photobucket et al are prob
    • Yes, all those sites are highly popular, but there were sites that were popular then too. Just because you are popular doesn't mean your business plan is viable in terms of long term expense to income ratio. To some extent, companies then that may have otherwise been reasonable got caught up in the hype and overextended themselves. I worked at the time for a company that had been stable for several years before the excitement of the late 90s. They weren't particularly exciting, but they held their own.
  • by LilBlackDemon (604917) <lilblackdemon@g m a i l .com> on Thursday December 28, 2006 @07:51PM (#17393600) Homepage
    The real profits of Web2.0 come directly from the areas we don't think they're coming from. People are very likely, because of the supposed anonymity of the internet, to post things publicly that they normally would not discuss in person. Also, they are more willing to post their tastes publicly than would normally be discussed.

    When was the last time you read someone's favorite books, movies, or TV shows off of a Facebook or Myspace profile? What about the comments on some recent product purchase in a blog (that's even what my blog is about)? What goods could you see in the background of the latest hot YouTube video? Ever wonder why your Gmail doesn't want you to delete old messages, even if they're useless, but instead "Archive" them?

    "Web 1.0"'s advertising-driven model was about getting users to click on their ads. Companies would throw ads everywhere, with the hope that people would bite. Web 2.0 is more about gathering background on customers so that retailers and manufacturers can market more successfully to them. The ads on digg can look at what you've dugg in the past, so that they can have a more informed base for what they're going to pitch to you. It's one thing to say that a sporting goods company should advertise on ESPN.com and a software developer on Slashdot, but if you take your market research further than you can advertise for the perfect place to go after your team's next home game on ESPN.com or where you can find some good reference books for your language of choice on Slashdot.

    It's not about getting in and getting out. It's about the data you collect. And if these companies are smart then they can bill on a subscription model for their customer information databases and be in business for quite some time. This is because background data is vital to marketers, and they will pay exorbitant amounts of money for the data. This should more than offset the operating costs of a website.
  • You can't tell me myspace.com is worth 850 million. That's just rediculous. Even in it's prime, Myspace was nothing more than a flea market of degenerate culture. But then again, I look at Rupert Murdock's other holdings and I can see why he was so enamoured with it.

    YouTube is different. I see potential here. If anything can penetrate the caustic grip of the few transnational corporations who own the media and information in United States, it may be Google's YouTube. There are a number of ways they can gene
  • by plopez (54068) on Friday December 29, 2006 @02:10AM (#17395872) Journal
    It's all web 3.0 now. 2.0 was a flawedconcept, go with 3.0. It is the most reliable, most secure, largest ROI and lowest TCO http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/23/business/we b.php [iht.com]

    It leverages collaborative synergies in an open and proprietary way to deliver value for interactive component architecture.

    It is so now, so modern so YOU! The smart set are 3.0!

    Seriously, does anyone doubt me when I say that IT is just like the fashion industry?

    That's why in 6 months I hope to be done with it.
  • As someone who works for a company that would probably qualify as "Web 2.0", I'm really sad to the see the skepticism of Slashdotters. I can understand why though: it's the Slashdot bandwagon to jump on. Dump on Web 2.0 because it's all just hot air.

    Personally, I'm refreshed at the resurgence of technologies since 2003. After the bubble burst, there was little or no investment in tech/Silicon Valley. It was no-mans land.

    Since then, I've seen a bunch of products that would be classified as Web 2.0
  • Seriously, why did we wait so long? It's been a very dry spell between Web 1.0 and 2.0, with about 5 years of unemployment and underpaid jobs for us geeks.

    For the future, we should aim to launch the next gen faster. It seems investors don't care about their money anyway. One should assume that they've learned their lesson after the dot.com bubble burst. That the market isn't limitless and that copying a concept isn't profitable.

    Well, it seems they don't learn. It's just the same crap all over. A handful of
  • Hornik writes: ...'[Ideas] that do bear fruit will gain traction and either be acquired or go public. Those are the traits of a rational market in my mind.'

    I find it odd that so many people think like this. I.e., that to be a success a company MUST be bought, either by the public or by another company. In either scenario, the company being bought loses most of its capability to be rational and agile... so selling is an act that destroys value quite a lot of the time, not just in terms of lost profits t

  • The only time web 2.0 comes to my mind is when clients ask "some little bit of this and that" to "lighten up" their site. and they dont seem to care much about it either.

Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it. Geniuses remove it. -- Perlis's Programming Proverb #58, SIGPLAN Notices, Sept. 1982

Working...