Enough is enough (Web 49.0)
Not that this is news to anyone, but the world has officially gone Web 2.0 crazy. I've been hearing more and more speculation about what Web 3.0 might look like, and so I found myself wondering this afternoon if anyone had bothered to make wild claims about Web 4.0.What I thought would be a quick Google searched turned into about 50 "quick" Google searches, until I found that the first web version number with no results at all is "Web 49.0". Apparently, someone else noticed this and even bothered to catalog the web version searches. I should warn that his blog is entirely in Danish, but he still deserves the credit.
Ok, admittedly, some of these are self-referential, have nothing to do with Web 2.0, or, in the case of "Web 47.0", appear to be race results for someone with the last name of Web who runs track for Webster County High School. Still, though, I think you see the problem.
Web 2.0 is very real and represents, even if in hindsight, that the internet and the way we do business on it has fundamentally changed during the last decade. In fairness, too, all of us worth our salt should be thinking long and hard about what Web 3.0 will look like. I'm sick and tired, though, of the poseurs and wannabes who think they can get rich by jumping on the Web 2.0 bandwagon. I lived through the dotCom bubble and bust working at an internet start-up and had hoped to be rid of the crazies, but sadly, they're back.
Nancy
· Wednesday, December 13I'm Director of Business Development at a $100M+ fast-growing technology company, and before that, I worked at Gartner. My chosen profession exposes me to trends in the technology space and gives me an understanding of the cultural zeitgeist of the internet. The current attention and enthusiasm around Web 2.0 is troubling me. I see very much the same miscues and gold-rush mentality that was evident during the first rise of the web: a lot of enthusiasm, but little understanding of the alignment between what customers and the market want and what is technically feasible. We are again in a time where capital is relatively easy to beg, borrow, or steal, oftentimes by those who don't have a solid business plan or clear market understanding of their Web 2.0 venture. I fear that another dotcom crash is imminent - the web is not experiencing your usual Hype Cycle. We are again in a state of heightened, unrealistic expectations and it's only a matter of time before we experience the plunge to realism again. Maybe it's time that Gartner introduces another framework to the world - that of the "Super-Hype Cycle" (or "Dead Cat Bounce")? I am not ignoring the fact that there will be some Web 2.0 businesses that will grow and thrive, but we need to be realistic - the vast majority of these current Web 2.0 enterprises will be little more than footnotes in internet history.
Dr. Pete
· Wednesday, December 13I agree that the investment trend is a bit troublesome. One thing that seems to be happening is that venture interest is on the rise, but, at the same time, start-ups and small businesses have wised up and don't want money with too many strings attached. By itself, that's a good thing, but it means that big venture capitalists are getting rejected by smart start-ups and are being forced to once again give their money to big, high-risk outfits. So, essentially, the need for somewhere to put the money is going to attract the same sorts of companies that caused the first dotCom crash.
Mike
· Thursday, December 14Ah, history repeating itself, again! People like "us" that survived the dot-bomb will survive Web x.0, and have a little fun watching the newcomers go thru what we did.
Kevin
· Tuesday, December 26Hmm... I think the problem here is not one of not knowing what the consumers want, but just a basic economics issue. Demand for web services are growing at a fixed rate. A lot of start-ups assume that demand will "magically" be generated, where in fact, what they are really doing is competing against large, established "brand-name" internet corporations (Google, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, etc.) that already provide a similar service. To be successful in "Web 2.0", creating one's own market is a must. This means someone getting people who aren't on "Web 2.0" on the internet (offline advertising) or selling some sort of unique product (and no, at this point, selling any kind of merchandise doesn't count, even if it's edible dinosaur-pattern underwear) and marketing adequately (and by adequately, I mean really freaking hard so everyone and their grandma knows about it). Even then, there's a good chance that a corporation larger than you is waiting to tear you down, or buy you out. Look at YouTube and Google. YouTube created their own market by starting the internet video trend, but Google Video just bought them out. To me, it was basically Google backhanding Youtube on the back of the head and saying, "No, b****. Git yo hands off mah market." The key as a start-up is to create these new markets before the "megacorporations" do so. You want your start-up name and logo to be associated with a certain product before anyone else does. If you provide supply, you better also create the demand to go with it too.
Dr. Pete
· Tuesday, December 26Hey, Google can give me a $1.6B backhand any day :) Even companies that create a new market have to carve the cash away from somewhere else (unless we're all getting richer all the time), and that's a difficult feat at best. It's shocking how many copycats swoop in after a new niche is created, assuming that money will magically flow to them. You might be able to make a few bucks on a Digg clone, etc., but the Web 2.0 wannabes shouldn't quit their day jobs.