B2B Corpse Exhumed For Yet Another Autopsy

from the not-your-father's-B2B dept

Wed, May 24th 2006 8:10am — Joseph Weisenthal

During the throes of the last bubble, one of the hottest buzzwords was B2B. Various companies promised to create dynamic online marketplaces where companies could trade in real time everything from steel joists to pencil erasers. Ironically, the hottest of them were the companies that promised to revolutionize staid industries. Remember eCattle (yes, B2B livestock exchange) and Chemdex (for the life sciences)? Although the bubble burst, some of those companies are still around, even if the future didn't turn out to be as sexy as they imagined. The internet has definitely had a large impact on ordering, fulfillment and supply chain management, among other things, but the "NASDAQs for physical goods" never came to pass. Many of the companies have either folded or merged with larger companies, while a few standalone players hang around. It's not news that these companies failed to live up to the hype, but it's interesting how quickly this revolutionary space turned into something rather quiet and mundane. As another bubble looms perhaps this is a guide for what to expect of new companies that are again promising to change the world.

10 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

anonymous coward, 24 May 2006 @ 9:21am

my morning crap has more news that this post

first
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NGUVU, 24 May 2006 @ 9:40am

At least it was grammatically correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave, 24 May 2006 @ 9:41am

Hmmm
I used to work for a B2B dotcom. I wish them better luck than we had :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scott, 24 May 2006 @ 10:39am

Dear firsts
Being the first person to reply to a post really is not that exciting, it also really does not need to be announced as everyone can clearly see that it is first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anonymous coward, 24 May 2006 @ 11:03am
  
  Re: Dear firsts
  jealous?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - TasMot, 24 May 2006 @ 11:39am
    
    Re: Re: Dear firsts
    No, just amazed that they have so much extra time to camp on the Techdirt site all day long so that they can say that they posted a reply first. Puhleassssse, get a life! Or at least contribute some opinion, reply to the article, or at least a good joke (from one of the other sites they must be trolling) to make it worthwhile being the first post.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - joe stacey, 24 May 2006 @ 11:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Dear firsts
      you're assuming.
      
      i'm amazed that you have so much extra time that you give a crap
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
reply to DEAR FIRSTS, 24 May 2006 @ 11:20am

there are so few joys in this world.. you might as well take 'em when you can get 'em. hell.. i'd sing to the mountains if i got to put up the first post... i call my friends to tell them i found a potato chip that looks like ted kennedy.. of course that happens pretty often..

anyway, my point is: no point in pooping on someone else's parade... someday you may want to have one.. and other snobby peoples' faeces will come raining down from the skies.. and..

hmmm... that's a nasty image in my head..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seth, 24 May 2006 @ 12:48pm

Um Okay back to the subject
I have to agree with #1 up there, though, on the opinion that this post has very little actual news. Kinda a waste of my time. I mean, essentially, Joe is saying, "Okay, those businesses that everyone was excited about? Well, some of 'em failed, some merged, and some succeeded." Thanks for that. I couldn't have guessed.

As for your conclusion, "perhaps this is a guide for what to expect of new companies that are again promising to change the world." -- Okay, um, how? That maybe they will succeed and maybe they won't? Does this surprise you? And WHAT NEW COMPANIES ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? How do they relate to B2B? I mean, gimme SOMETHING, here.

If you were just trying to hilight the new articles released on those other sites you link, maybe you should just stick to the point and say so.

Nice title, though. That's the only reason I read this thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mark, 24 May 2006 @ 2:23pm

He used the word autopsy. Seems most everyone subconciously stops to gawk at wrecks, plane crashes, Dr. G, and so on, in the hopes of getting a gander at a victim. I think he employed wording, intentional or not, that would suck a few of us in, even though the actual topic obviously had little chance of providing any real post-mortem thrills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]