Comments on: Bubble 2.0?

By: tommy australien

tommy australien — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 07:26:22 +0000

Web2.0? I’m still not sure what that exactly is supposed to mean. User interaction was there long before the term was coined, and if Web2.0 should be defined by “User-generated content”, than thank you very much, but no!
Where anyone is allowed to contribute content unsupervised, the quality of any project as a whole will drop dramatically, simply because it would be so much harder to find useful articles under a huge pile of user-generated junk.
Take youtube comments as an example…

By: Jukka-Pekka Keisala

Jukka-Pekka Keisala — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:57:14 +0000

Some “web2.0″ will burst maybe not as hard as .com did but there is all indications that something goes down. There is of course companies that will survive, its just cleaning up bad trees from the forest. Old business rules still works, companies who actually make money will survive.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 08:55:37 +0000

I sat around a meeting table about 10 months before the bubble burst with all of the “big” names in new media – even then they’re were laughing and joking about how some peoples business plan equated to one side of A4 paper and “We’ll IPO in 6 months”, and yet they still invested millions?!?! A year later those huge gobal businesses no longer existed….

The dot-com boom was about stupid people investing millions of pounds on a whim.

By: britneyfreek

britneyfreek — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 07:39:25 +0000

ajax and such are much about technology. dot-com was more about conviction.

By: Kjell

Kjell — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 07:39:24 +0000

There is no bubble and nothing will burst… ;)

By: Adrian

Adrian — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 07:19:29 +0000

Facebook is financed by 3-letter intelligence agencies for the incredible amount of information that it provides. Advertising revenue came after the investment (around 13 milion dollars for a start-up!!!). The rest is business as usual. No bubble for you today!

By: brice

brice — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:43:45 +0000

Man… why respond w/ opposite irrationality? I’ll tell you one thing; .com’s can’t stand economic strain… they don’t provide much of a real service, and if advertisers are strapped… so are you.

By: Jim Jones

Jim Jones — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:50:06 +0000

Dvorak… yawn.

By: Dietrich Kappe

Dietrich Kappe — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:31:15 +0000

Vijay,

the 1% figure was from a January 2007 survey by Compete.com.

By: Mark Holton

Mark Holton — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:17:57 +0000

ha! …that link should be in the Friday humor page. There is basically zero substance to that article. For a second I thought I was reading Wired magazine (another rag rarely with substance) …I think some of these magazines are desperate for traffic.

By: Alex Rudloff

Alex Rudloff — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:30:03 +0000

Dvorak might be out of his mind most of the time, but booms are always followed by busts. With the sudden need for every widget in the world to take VC, we’re obviously headed into a boom.

Are we about to experience another correction/crash/adjustment? No, I doubt it’s as immediate as Dvorak suggests. But to say that he’s completely insane is being a little ….. “hopeful”

By: Vijay Santhanam

Vijay Santhanam — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:53:37 +0000

“shoot, 1% of all online time is spent on Facebook”

What’s the source for this fact?

By: James MacFarlane

James MacFarlane — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:40:40 +0000

The .com burst was about overvalued publicly traded companies that had no income model. Now that most industries trust the web and actually spend money on online advertising, sites DO have a revenue stream. The burst was also part of a bigger economic picture — corporate misreporting of income ala Nortel, Enron and others. Stock values tumbled, investors got nervous and the while tech industry fell on its face.

I do not see either of these problems lurking at the moment.

Dvorak is a columnist, not an economist. He’s doing his job, which helps sell magazines.

By: justin

justin — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:25:12 +0000

complete BS. I want that 10 minutes back!

By: BillyG

BillyG — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:02:12 +0000

I saw that this morning, and just went right on by. Apparently you wanted to spend time reading his crap lol.

By: Seth

Seth — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:51:17 +0000

Here was my detailed response to his idiotic PC Magazine article.

http://www.secondcityceo.com/2007/08/02/john-dvorak-the-new-fox-technology-news-anchor/

Anyway, does anyone actually taker anything PC Magazine seriously?

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:47:14 +0000

(I didn’t read the article)

While I agree that it’s not a bubble on anywhere the scale of the dot-com bubble, I am concerned about how much the Web 2.0 concepts have been touted.

When you look at VCs that invest in Web 2.0 companies, and the hundreds (thousands?) of small businesses banking on some flickr, del.icio.us, or similar knock-off, I wonder if the importance of these concepts (social networking, SaaS, etc) isn’t highly exaggerated. I suspect that the percentage of successful Web 2.0 startups might be less than that for startups in general.

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:49:27 +0000

Information overload will be the downfall of web 2.0

Only so much time and so many eyeballs.
Not enough for everyone.

Web 2.0 is an Information Bubble!

The Market canâ€™t handle all the Wannabes.

By: Scott Schiller

Scott Schiller — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:44:57 +0000

Dvorak’s been around for a while and seems to enjoy stirring the pot. If he had written something like, “Hey, everything’s fine, we’re having fun”, then I’d be concerned. ;)

By: Steven Schrab

Steven Schrab — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:33:36 +0000

I’d like to see the Dvorak-bubble burst.