1999 Is Calling. It Wants Its Hype Back
from the where-have-we-seen-this-before... dept
There's been lots of talk about the possibility of "Bubble 2.0," which (so far) appears to be taking a lot of ideas from the original dot com bubble, and using dynamic HTML to make it look cooler (it moves! in a browser!). While it's true that some of these second attempts are doing things much more intelligently this time around, an increasing number are not. Once the money starts flowing (and, if you hadn't noticed, it's flowing), it seems that "lessons learned" get tossed out in favor of doing anything possible to jump on the gravy train. The only problem is that we've seen how this train ride ends, and it's a train wreck that we'd all probably be better off avoiding. Still, if you want to revisit the signposts of years past, here are two more: it's suddenly fashionable again to put your startup in "stealth mode." Stealth mode is a silly term for it. Being quiet about what you're doing certainly can make sense -- especially early on when you're still figuring out the details of your messaging and positioning. However, too many startups use stealth mode as a buzz builder -- as if not telling people what you do deserves more attention than having an actual product. It's that second use of stealth mode that tends to cause over-inflated expectations. The second bubble sign is when the failures of the original dot com bubble return from the dead to try to make it again. In this case, it's "boo.com," whose only claim to fame these days was how spectacularly it flamed out. However, in a bubble era when "any publicity is good publicity," the larger the failure you're trying to resurrect, the more publicity you'll likely receive. So, come on Webvan, Kozmo and others. It's time to come on back. All you need to do is use AJAX and it'll make people forget to ask if you have a business model.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
actually, what i meant to say was,
yeah, first post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and btw, thats a SHITTY title. go fuck urself, mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
I've noticed a recent trend in the past couple of weeks for all sorts of immature behavior. I'd hate to see one of the best IT blogs on the 'net turn into a cesspool of immature "first posters" and "yeah, well you're an idiot" comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
And now your taking it out on Mike?
I think we need to document the "First Post Bubble" and see if we can hasten it's demise.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Apologies if that's your real name and if you meant to post some identifying information but it fell off or something
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
interesting
Nice and all, free and/or fluffy stuff on the 'net, but in the end only the good stuff will prevail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The bubble's back, baby!
I still have some "FLOOZ" that someone gave me for Christmas to unload....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bashing Web2.0 is so trendy...
I'm not sure why I'm bothering to comment on your post, but since I disagree with the consensus I'll add my piece.
Terminology:
It's easy to tell the difference between what we'll call "Web 1.0" and "Web 2.0." Web 1.0 is about web sites that have content and the ability to interact in some way, like commenting on a blog. Web 2.0 is about building an ecosystem of web applications that work together (often using open standards like XML) and feel more responsive.
However you want to label it, Flickr is clearly different from Ofoto, Google Maps is clearly different from Mapquest, etc.
Bubble:
Bubbles are based on extreme valuations without clear business models. What are some examples of this? The Web 2.0 companies that have sold weren't really overvalued from what I've seen -- some of the small ones were actually under a million dollars, and even Flickr and Delicious were relatively cheap for the user base and talent they brought the acquiring company.
Repeat ideas:
This one actually makes me mad. Sure, Boo.com was a terrible idea. But some of the best products are repeats of ealier failures. Myspace is a close copy of Six Degrees. Municipal Wifi is a repeat of Ricochet (though I'm not sure this counts as web 2.0).
I know that Kozmo and Webvan had bad business models, but there really should be a good way to have groceries delivered to my house.
Stealth Mode
I generally think it's a bad idea, though as a person starting a company with no PR agent I generally have no idea what I should tell the press. Can I tell them who my clients are? Or what type of clients I have? If I say "we're working on home deliver" will they label me "Webvan 2.0"? (For the record, I'm not working on the new webvan.)
So Mike, of you're so down on the current crop of startups, what do you think people should be doing? What are some great business plans that haven't ever been tried before?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Ahem...thanks for adding to the problem. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flatten
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh no
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Web 2.0 Comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
lets say I want to go to Apples site, write now I type www.apple.com, if apple takes up web 2.0, i would still visit the same site right? URL and all stay the same, its just how the content in terms of code etc. is delivered?
Maybe I just have no clue what im talking about because the entire idea has always lost me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Web 2.0 is a term that people are using to describe a style of web design/programming. Most things remain unchanged - you go to a regular URL and read the content or use the service. The main difference is the the website functions more like a regular desktop computer application. For example you don't have to load a new page whenever you want something to change. The best example of Web 2.0 is Google Maps, which gets new map information without loading a new page.
Some people don't like the term "Web 2.0" because they consider it a buzz word. Others, like myself, don't mind the term because it conveys information about the type of technology and interaction style that a web product has. Most consumers will never hear the term, and will just notice that websites seem to be faster these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kozmo rocked!
When it decided it wanted to be a grocery store and not the local video store, that's when the troubles began.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]