Web 2.0 Bubble May Be Worst Burst Yet 417
athloi writes with a link to an editorial by John Dvorak over at the PC Magazine site. Rather than his usual tilting at windmills, Dvorak turns his attention to possibility of another big internet economy 'pop': "Every single person working in the media today who experienced the dot-com bubble in 1999 to 2000 believes that we are going through the exact same process and can expect the exact same results — a bust. It's déjà vu all over again. Each succeeding bubble has been worse than its predecessor. Thus nobody is actually able to spot the cycle, since it just looks like a continuum. I can assure you that after this next collapse, nobody will think of the dot-com bubble as anything other than a prelude." It certainly seems like another burst is imminent; will this one be worse than the original, or have less of an impact?
Obviously the economy isn't doing too bad (Score:5, Informative)
Is Dvorak Delirious? (Score:4, Informative)
His article has nothign to do with the traditional understanding of what a "bubble" is, espeically when referring to the tech 'bubble' of the late 90's.
If somehow he is referring to the tech bubble in the financial sense, there is no 'Tech Bubble 2.0'. Why? Well, Yahoo, like most other tech stocks at the time, was trading at over 1700 P/E at one point in the late 90's. In other words, based on its earnings at the time, it would have taken 1,700 years for it to make the amount of money its stock was worth. Yahoo is currently trading at a P/E of 46. In fact, most stocks now are trading at fairly conservative P/E ratios as compared to historical ratios.
You wanna see a tech stock with a high P/E in modern day society? Check out ticker symbol: CRM. Luckily, in the grand scheme of things, this is just an outlier.
Show me the money (Score:4, Informative)
During The Great Bubble the numbers predicting the pop were glaringly obvious. I recall many financial articles predicting the demise of EToys, Pets.com, Webvan, etc. And the believers dismissed the analysis as "old economy" and people who "didn't get it". The new economy was based on "eyeballs", "stickyness", etc. Not profit vs. loss. It was a whacked time. It was The Great Bubble.
Show me the numbers now. What bubble? Sure there's web 2.0 hype. Google, the leader of web2.0 is profitable. Maybe overvalued, who knows. And yahoo too. Also protifable. And amazon. And myspace and linkedin and facebook, all the posterchildren of web 2.0, are all financially sound even if they aren't all profitable.
So show me the numbers that indicate a bubble on the scale of The Great Bubble.
Dvorak really is a wind bag. Too bad Slashdot with its human editors can't at least compete with Digg and prevent this kind of drivel making it to the front page.
Re:Does anyone listen to him any more? (Score:5, Informative)
I can't say whether it was a bubble or not, but I know I'm glad no one, except for perhaps some cell phone/PDA software autorun presentations, still uphold that particular art form. With this in mind, he's not all full of crap.
As for the industry going towards more or fewer bubbles, I have no idea. On one hand, the industry is stabilizing and maturing (if by "maturing" you mean "big companies can upsell other big companies on ridiculous systems no one needs") so more and more jobs are guaranteed. On the other hand, there's still technical evolution and still wrong-headed venture capital, so there will always be costly software projects that fail (and software projects *do fail*, more than half of them, regularly). On the gripping hand, there are people who know way more about this industry than I do and even they can't say which way it'll go.
the stock charts are really different (Score:5, Informative)
Sure Google's stock is way up there, and the price/earnings ratio is a little foolish on some of the brand name tech stocks, but go back and look at the stock charts. This time around, there is none of the obscene spiking that sends investors into a "buying panic." And without those heights to fall from we won't have a "selling panic." So the basic mechanics of a bubble in the investment sense are missing. Investors have mostly been thinking about commodities and uranium, and are generally wary of tech stocks after the dot bomb.
--
thegirlorthecar.com [thegirlorthecar.com] - a dating game for guys
Re:Phew! Thank [insert deity] for that! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Is... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's a bit different (Score:5, Informative)
The only bubble bursting at the moment is the subprime and alt-a real estate bubble. This will effect all aspects of the economy, including the tech sector. However, that is not the same as the web 2.0 bubble bursting.
Nothing to see here, move along. And for the record, I didn't RTFA, clicking on Dvorak links only encourages him to write more useless drivel.
This is nothing like '99 (Score:5, Informative)
The thing that made the dot-com bubble unique was that it affected damn near every corner of the industry
It was insane. Unsustainable valuations that reminded me more of tulip bulb trading. Companies with absolutely no background in tech were opening up IT consulting branches. Yes, I'm looking at you KPM&G.
If anything what we're currently experiencing is a correction from an industry that was over-sold in the wake of the dot-com collapse in 2000 and then the outsourcing insanity that followed after. That was a double whammy that dried up the pipeline of IT students in college almost overnight.
It doesn't feel like tulip bulb trading this time. This is a correction and we're still playing catch up.
Re:Companies come and companies go (Score:5, Informative)
For those who missed it, the stock market took a dive in 2000, in part because the whole Y2K(Year 2000) issue ended up being uneventful, and many people who were working because companies were spending money to make sure Y2K didn't hurt them suddenly were out of a job. The other reason for the crash really deserves to be looked at.
As many are aware, the Internet came into the public eye in the 1994-1996 period. Before that, the general public was not aware of the Internet, and public access was very difficult to find, with colleges/universities being the way to get connected for the most part. By the middle of 1996, more and more non-technical people were discovering the Internet, and so the start of the bubble began. Those with business degrees started to look at the Internet as a way to make money(not to be confused with the technical people who started tech companies).
Those with a business degree and no real technical knowledge really had no business starting a high-profile tech company, but, there was hype about the Internet, and those with business degrees tend to know people who have money. So, these business people would get financing for an idea that wasn't even developed yet. For the worst offenders of the
With the initial money, these companies might go for around 2-3 years or so before the money ran out. This puts us right at the 1999 or so timeframe. What happens when you have dozens of companies, each one having gotten several millions of dollars each running out of venture money at the same time without any positive income? Suddenly the venture capitalists realized their mistakes, and they put the breaks on funding these go-nowhere fluff companies that were based on an idea but without the skills or products to allow for a payoff.
Boom, the stock market took it hard, and the
Over the 2000-2001 time period, with venture money not being available, many of the smaller companies that had products started to run into trouble. Their customer base was shrinking, and even with a good product, too many companies were going into defense mode and not spending, even on good ideas or products. This caused the larger companies like Cisco and Sun Microsystems to run into problems because they grew huge based on the demands of the smaller companies that were now dropping like flies. They were not in danger of folding, but downsizing was needed. Of course, all of these unemployed technical people suddenly could not buy the tech products, so the rest of the tech sector slowed down a lot.
The downturn in the tech sector as a whole continued through the end of 2002 into the beginning of 2003. By then, the sector had hit it's bottom and was slowly recovering. The survivors started to see a recovery in their business, but the sector as a whole STILL has yet to fully recover. The promise of what the Internet has to offer is still there, but many lenders and investors
For those who don't pay attention to finance (Score:2, Informative)
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070801/wall_street.html?.
Too many subprime loans giving out at ridiculous rates(including outrageous home prices) and now we are seeing the aftermath as a result of these actions. Just take a look at American Home Mortgage stock. Just a year ago there stock was close to 40 bucks now its worth 1.40. If there is any fallout it will be a result from the mortgage industry dragging everyone down
As for web2.0, just don't repeat the same mistakes on what caused the dot com bubble to burst. If that can be done(which I know is hard for some to learn from history) I don't see the bubble bursting anytime soon.
Re:Venture Capital Firms' Spending (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Does anyone listen to him any more? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Phew! Thank [insert deity] for that! (Score:5, Informative)
I made a fair chunk of change between 1998 and 2001, writing back-end code for companies that wanted to put some kind of service online. Trust me, the idiocy level back then was staggering. A friend and I used to say, "y'know, we could start a business that sells dollar bills for 95 cents each, and have a better business model than most of the startups out there."
The last dotcom boom was fueled by people who misunderstood the notion of branding. In practice, a brand is the reputation consumers associate with your company's name and/or logo. Apple, for instance, has a strong brand because lots of people have had good experiences with Macs and iPods, and the strength of that brand has generated lots of interest in the iPhone. Microsoft has a strong brand in the workplace, because everyone knows that MS products have been standard for the past decade or so. Both of those brands are based on people's experiences with actual products, though.
Back around 1998, marketers honestly thought the products were irrelevant. They thought the 'brand' was simply public awareness of the company name and logo. They thought you could slide products and services -- even whole business models -- in and out under that 'brand', and consumers would simply adapt to whatever was there at the moment.
They also believed in first-mover advantage.. bigtime. According to the guys in expensive suits, the first dozen or so companies who managed to establish their reputationless 'brands' would have all the time they needed to shove an actual business in under the logo. Everyone else would die because the winning 'brands' would suck up all the available customers.
So the whole dotcom bubble became a race to the peak of stupidity, and the winner (IMO) was a company that blew something like 80% of its venture funding on a single Superbowl ad that never even mentioned the company name or URL. Among the honorable (sic) mentions were boo.com and petsmart.com.
Basically, during the dotcom bubble v1.0, everyone was trying to imitate Amazon.com, which went from nothing to being one of the strongest brands in the country almost overnight. People didn't realize -- or more specifically, didn't care -- that Amazon's brand was held up by a solid reputation for good customer experiences, or that Amazon did have a business plan that led to profitability a few years down the road.
Today, everyone's trying to imitate Google, which is more or less leading the way in using the web browser as a software platform. For Google, it's just an exercise in wholesale data collection. Data allows Google to improve its search service, and the search service is a vector to sell ad impressions. Nobody else has a business model which generates profits directly from putting software-as-a-service up for use by the general public, but that doesn't stop people from trying to aggregate users with web-based software. The god news is that we have actual products these days, and that the funding is going to companies who've developed good brands based on actual user experience with the product.
The bad news is that places like twitter.com will eventually find themselves looking for enough revenue to support the millions of people who love the stuff they can get for free. It's almost inevitable that some of them will collapse. But that doesn't make this a bigger and more financially irresponsible bubble than dotcom v1.0.
I spent 1998 to 2001 walking around shaking my head at the stupidity of web ventures that could rake in tens of millions of dollars in funding, and hearing about stupider and more expensive ones every week. I'm not doing that these days. I still say, "nice service.. but I don't see how they're going to make money," every now and then, but we aren't in the middle of a balls-out silly season like we were back then.