Technologies To Watch Fail In 2009 108
An anonymous reader writes "Microblogs, targeted advertising, social news, online video, streaming music, and enterprise social networking are among the technologies that will probably fail in 2009, according to a new report from Internet Evolution. The report cites revenue figures, failed or non-existent business models, and an overabundance of 'me-too' start-ups, combined with the current recession, as reasons the aforementioned technologies might not survive the year. 'Whereas the past couple of years have been defined by overcrowding and overfunding in the Web 2.0 space, and an onslaught of startups with no purpose or plan to make money, this recessionary year is likely to see more due diligence on the part of VCs, allowing strong companies and technologies to emerge from the smoldering pile of dead ones.'"
Re:Not technologies that will fail (Score:5, Interesting)
While I agree with your sentiment, I don't see the use of microblogs such as twitter. Regular blogs attract me as a possible source of information and well written information from someone more informed than a journalist at times.
All I see in microblogs is the internet version of that person calling home from the supermarket asking their insignificant other whether to get 1% or skim milk and other such nonsense.
Which isn't to say whether it has any real social value or not will make it fail as a business... it's just that I don't think it will really matter.
Mobile phone targetted advertising (Score:4, Interesting)
About 6 months ago I signed up to Blyk [blyk.co.uk], a "free" mobile network for 16-25 year olds, which gave subscribers 43 minutes call time and 217 texts free per month (plenty for what I use). It was supported by advertising, every day I'd receive either an MMS or SMS with an advert, typically for clothes and music (that's what my demographic is meant to waste its money on, isn't it? Well, that and booze.)
Anyway, I haven't had an advert since about Christmas, and yesterday got a text from Blyk saying they were changing the deal to £15/month free credit, which works out as less texts/minutes at their prices (8p per text, 24p/min call). Maybe the business model wasn't quite as good as predicted.
Re:Not technologies that will fail (Score:5, Interesting)
Right now on twitter I'm following @bashcookbook and I get a bash tip every day. I also follow @thaumatrope and read little 140 character slivers of science fiction stories. @Outshine calls theirs prose poetry and it is all with a speculative fiction type spin. @oreillymedia keeps me up to date on oreilly stuff including conferences, web casts, new books and things they have on-line like blog posts and interviews.
This may not be your cup of tea - but for a lot of people it is a very popular way to receive and share information. The other people I follow are individuals who are pretty well known (Wil Wheaton, Jon Scalzi, Tim O'Reilly, etc.) and I'm interested in things like what they are doing, what they are reading, stuff like that.
Does all that matter? I'm not sure, it all depends on context. But to me personally it matters right now. There is also the fact that now that I have a number of friends who are also on twitter we are able to use it as a way of keeping in touch. Of course we could use instant messaging or email - but we don't. If we need to say something longer we use another method - but throughout the day twitter is usually enough.
Oh - and with the ability to search through all of this - it becomes an index of sorts as many microblog posts point to other places on the web. That's another feature that I believe brings real value. And I know that this is also available in other platforms - but what I've seen happen is that many people tend to microblog much more freely than they will do a regular blog post. So in the end it will get more information out there.
I've been thinking about this a lot in the last few weeks - which may be obvious. I just put in a request to host a project at source forge for a microblogging tool I'd like to build. So there's my bias. I'm pretty excited about what I see as some cool possibilities. Of course not everyone will be on board with this. It may never grow beyond a niche thing. But I remember the first time I was on facebook and thought "What is the point and who is ever going to do this?" Of course now just about everyone I know is on facebook.
Evolve with trends (Score:4, Interesting)
For a good discussion of where the trends could be going, read this article: http://tech.lds.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=371&Itemid=5 [lds.org]
Re:They forgot Sirius-XM satellite (Score:3, Interesting)
You can't listen to your Cellphone as it streams wireless radio in your car? Or Ipods in your car?
I think satellite radio is going the same way as the VCR - slowly but surely being replaced by other technologies.
Re:Mobile phone targetted advertising (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They forgot Sirius-XM satellite (Score:3, Interesting)
I bought a Focus recently. It came with both Sirius and Sync, which takes just about anything with a USB plug or bluetooth.
I was rather liking Sirius, as it had several channels of rock, electronic, opera, etc. so I heard lots of new music that I wouldn't hear on the radio.
Then they merged with XM, dropped most of the channels I listened to, and my free trial ran out.
About then I realized that for the cost of Sirius I could stick a 500 gig hard drive in the Sync and buy a hundred or two new songs every year.
I'm also glad I went that way since my wife got me a Crackberry Storm for Xmas and now I can stream music off the internet through my car stereo with my phone, which lets me find some really random new stuff.
The trouble with "targeted advertising" (Score:5, Interesting)
"Targeted advertising" has real problems. Ads on search results pages are valuable, because they're presented at the point that the user is actively looking for something. Vaguely relevant ads on other pages (the "Google Content Network" comes to mind) are a distraction, and far less valuable. Clicks on such ads are mostly from the 10% of web users who make 50% of the clicks, but don't buy much. Many advertisers have opted out of the Google Content Network (read Search Engine Watch [searchenginewatch.com]). As we point out, about 36% of Google Content Network advertisers are "bottom-feeders" [sitetruth.net], junk sites with no verifiable business behind them. There's been a slow decline in contextual advertising, and I expect that to continue, and maybe accelerate. Ad-supported sites will feel the squeeze.
Targeted advertising is effective if the advertiser has the user's buying history. Amazon exploits this successfully; they know exactly what you've bought. But spreading that information around creates privacy problems and loud objections. Merchants aren't keen about letting their competitors know who their best customers are. Payment companies like Visa and PayPay could in theory take that role, but they've been reluctant to do so for fear of regulatory backlash. Payment companies don't currently know what you bought, just who you bought it from. They'd need merchant cooperation to profile their customer base.
What this may mean is a network effect for broad-based online merchants like Amazon. The bigger they get, the better their targeted advertising becomes. Customers don't object, because they're dealing with one company which legitimately knows what they've bought. Amazon may take up the slack as brick-and-mortar stores go under. In consumer electronics, Circuit City, The Good Guys, CompUSA, etc. have all gone under, and Amazon is taking up much of the slack.
My thoughts (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with the perspective on microblogging as athe only thing a site does. I just don't see the revenue stream in something like that inherently. I do see the alternative possibility that Twitter becomes a brand name and licenses their presence to be integrated in other sites. I think there will be a focus on bringing together currently disparate aspects of 'social networking' and revenue strategies to evolve. Currently, I don't think the revenue streams can stand on their own, but social networking is too ubiquitous and popular for *no one* to get a rational business plan going.
I think the outlook on targeted advertising is particular. The only aspect that is potentially interesting is that too much money went in and set impossible expectations. However, the quality of the advertising I think too significant to discount. Interactive, targeted advertising is something leaps and bounds over television. There are a few hotspots on television where almost everyone will see advertising, and some shows with such a narrow fanbase it actually turns out to be kind of targeted. However, the production cost to participate is non-trivial, and viewers have to take it upon themselves to write down details to research it later if they have never heard of the product. Also, the ubiquity of DVR reduces the exposure to ads.
The statement on social news had nothing to do with the value of social news sites, and everything to do with neglecting a business plan. This is no surprise.
On online video, they claim that other than YouTube and Hulu, little will be left. I would support the statement, with the note that Porn content sites will continue.
On online radio, I would be reluctant to say that's out, but again the focus is not inherent flaws, but rather the recording industries being resistant towards that model and making life hard intentionally. The recording indutry is ass-backwards enough to sink an industry that would be highly valuable to them.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Also look for virtual worlds... (Score:4, Interesting)
...to fail in 2009. Not all of them, obviously. Second Life will continue to trundle along (although they've lost about 3000 servers the last few months due to a rather unfortunate series of "gotcha" price increases), mostly due to its user content.
There's an entire industry of virtual worlds stuff, and almost every single startup in this space does the exact same thing: Take Second Life, remove the user content, add in dancing, music, and social networking embedding. Voila! Instant startup. We're talking dozens of companies doing the exact same thing over and over again.
So those guys are dead.
PS3's Home is dead on arrival (no user content). Google Lively's already dead. Any "enterprise" use of virtual worlds is in the research phase (or just using open source alternatives like OpenSim).
Anyone investing in virtual worlds tech in 2009 is a chump, sorry.
Re:Also look for virtual worlds... (Score:3, Interesting)
Home COULD work, but they need to add some very basic stuff first.
Consoles haven't had IM or chatroom features for a long time even thought they've been steadily building up multiplayer online games.
From what I understand, Xbox Live has some kind if chat room features too, but I think it's based on inviting people from your friends list. Prior to Home, you could do the same on PSN. I think the more mature, older gamers don't like the idea of adding random strangers we play games with to a "friends" list, much less chatting with them.
I think what they really need is something like IRC. Home should establish some kind of GAME RELATED context, not fake bowling alley / mall. I occasionally want to talk about feature X in game Y.. even if the expert on the subject has a whiney voice and is fifteen years younger than I. Or what about coop campaign, how to older gamers do this? I don't live in a dorm full of friends who buy video games. Rather than building a list of fake "friends", I'd rather team up with someone at random, on the spot, when I felt like it. Home really makes that difficult. Why is there no way to tell Home, "I have these games, put me in these rooms." Let me just talk with other people who own the same games or are interested in them. I don't care what the freaking visual content is - add it LATER.
Once they fix the social, and technical aspects, the visual stuff should be secondary. Sell addon content & advertise to a social system that works first. Who TF is going to go into Home... for the sake of buying virtual crap and ads? Ah, anyway, it fills a gaping hole in console gaming, so don't count it out yet.
Anyone investing in virtual worlds tech in 2009 is a chump, sorry.
Consoles need chatrooms & more public socializing. Virt world == 3D chatroom. Fix the social, add 3D, monetize.
Losing Sirius would be a shame (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a blue water sailor. I use Sirius off shore and in the Bahamas and in the Caribbean. Without Sirius we will be forced to resort to old fashioned analog short wave radio, with the squawks and crackles.
I don't use it for music, but it's irreplaceable for news and NPR. Next Tuesday I'll use it to listen to Obama's speech. Still haven't seen that man's face on TV, but I'm familiar with his voice on Sirius.
I can hardly claim that blue water sailors and cruise ships and others outside Internet/phone coverage are a significant market segment. Still, it would be a unlikely shame to see any segment of society forced to abandon digital technology for tired old analog stuff.
The Sirius/XM satellites will still be there even after bankrupcy. Perhaps a new owner could buy them for 1 cent on a dollar, wipe out the original share holders and bond holders, and make a profitable business out of keeping them operating.
p.s. I'm not at sea today. Otherwise I couldn't get Slashdot.