American investors start-ups Web 2.0: your song is sung!

I recently got one “anonymous critic”. He fell in love with me after the note “ Y Combinator - a faded icon from the time of Fever 2.0, ” a link to which I made in the hub. He loved it so much that he did not hesitate to pour mud on me, without disdaining numerous distortions and frauds. And all for the fact that I dared to call things, as it seemed to me, by their proper names: the times of startup culture inherent in Web 2.0 are a thing of the past, and this can not even affect such preachers of this culture as Paul Graham with his famous Y Combinator.

I emphasize that it was not about the functional-consumer concept of the Web 2.0 trend itself, of which I continue to be a supporter. And all my readers know this. I did not question the actual achievements of Y Combinator, which I often talked about on my blog. By the way, one of the first in RuNet. Although he never asked for investments (one of the distortions of my beloved “critic”). True, at one time I was going to do it. The conversation in my note was only about the Web 2.0 business model and the investment policy corresponding to it, which is largely speculative, or rather, a "pyramidal" nature.

In my article, which literally caused sacred anger in my “critic”, I made, it would seem, all the necessary links. However, among other things, he was charged with hiding sources of information.

Therefore, I decided to help my critics. Below are just a few quotes - excerpts. And only about the business model. No deviations the other way! If you wish, you will read the rest yourself (the most informative links are given!) I give only some of the most recent publications confirming my point of view. And from the most authoritative sources. No “emotions and interpretations” on my part, which I received a charge from another commentator.

I apologize, but still forced to give all this in translation. So, do not blame the quality. Although for the endowment, he still considered it necessary to provide explanations on the text for the translation of some idioms and / or abbreviations. For example, “RIP” on the tombstone depicted in the figure is deciphered as “Rest in Peace” - an idiom equivalent to the Russian “Peace be upon you.” So ...


Facebook has exceeded 5, but will it survive? ( CNN: Facebook turns 5 - but can it survive? ) - a link to this article was made in my previous article.

... however, questions about the finances behind Facebook's soaring growth remain. The company attracted more than $ 200 million from venture capitalists and in 2006 rejected the proposed Yahoo! $ 1 billion

In 2007 Microsoft paid $ 250 million for a 1.6% stake. The figure that brings Facebook’s overall estimate to $ 15 billion.

But with the onset of the global economic crisis that hit web advertising - Facebook’s main source of revenue, these figures seem to belong to a bygone era.

“What Facebook still does not have is guaranteed success ( slam-dunk - a basketball technique that ensures the ball hits the basket 100% when the basketball player, jumping high, pushes him there - AM),” says Adam Lashinsky ) in Fortune Magazine - “Selling ads generates revenue, but is not very profitable, if at all.”

Web 2.0 is dead. Long live Web 2.0! ( Sys-Con:Web 2.0 Is Dead. Long Live Web 2.0! ) - the note received the highest possible rating from readers.

The unpleasant news of the demise of Web 2.0 ... finally reached Silicon Valley, and all its allies around the world.

In my opinion, everything goes to the fact that events related to Web 2.0 will either be canceled or the last attempts will be made to somehow save the situation so as not to throw out a white towel.

If, nevertheless, contrary to business logic, the organizers want to conduct these events, they will lose millions of dollars and discover on their last shows that Web 2.0 was nothing more than DOA ( Dead on Arrival - a patient “Dead on Arrival” to the hospital , for example, i.e. in this case, from the very beginning- A.M.). Anyway, if we are talking about his business model. The participation of industry representatives is a key indicator determining the values ​​of a technological trend. And what can better show the success or failure of an event than the participation of various industries in it?

Since "as a business model in programming" Web 2.0 is leaving, I want to repeat my previous point of view that Web 2.0 has never been such a model. Yes, attempts were made to turn Web 2.0 into a business model, but they all failed, and were finally buried in early 2008, four years from the moment when Kool-Aid Web 2.0 ( Kool-Aid is a type of sugary drink for children- A.M.) was first presented as a solution - by the fact that he never turned into. Now, those who believe in the non-existent “Web 2.0 business model” have found themselves in the position of Wall Street, but without any hope of a state buyback parachute ( bail-out is now used in the USA to bring some strategically important financial institutions and enterprises out of crisis - A .M.).

I do not claim that Panic 2008 killed Web 2.0. I just say that Web 2.0 has never been a means of generating revenue. And many software companies and startups today ended up in Dead End 2.0.

I also say that many businesses that called themselves Web 2.0 sites (due to a lack of a better name) will disappear due to the recession. Nobody needs the services of hundreds of companies that position themselves as providers of Web 2.0 solutions. Yes, and really were not needed from the first days of entering the Kool-Aid market under the name "Web 2.0 business model."

Investors start-ups Web 2.0: your time is over ( MassHighTech: VC's tell Web 2.0 startups; It's over) - a link to this article was made in my previous article. The titles of the article in the print and web versions are somewhat different.

At a time when more and more Americans are flocking to social networking sites, one group runs away from them in a different direction: investors.

If in 2006 and 2007 the annual total funding for Web 2.0 startups in five states of New England doubled compared to the previous year, today investors are turning their backs on web-based companies targeting individual consumers, fearing that startups 2005 and 2006 years will turn out to be foam - part of the mini-bubble, labeled as "Web 2.0".

“So much venture money turned out to be lost in this sector (black hole), that the word“ Web 2.0 ”itself could well turn into a four-letter curse, if it hasn’t already,” said one investor ( hereinafter, the names of investors and company names are omitted You can find them in the original- A.M.). He also suggested that investor concerns could go beyond the time frame of the crisis, given the upcoming retirement of the military generation (baby boomers) and lower consumer spending.

“If you define Web 2.0 as consumer-oriented, then the next 20 years, I think, will be very difficult,” he adds.

Another investor said that he thinks that only those methods of attracting new users that are justified from a business point of view now have the right to life. The times of the [abstract] capitalization of the social web have irrevocably gone ... And this despite the fact that according to Forrester predictions , 85% of Americans by the end of this year will use the social web.

The same investor said that smart money now does not go to attract users who continue to flock to the giants already entrenched in the market. A good investment in the social web today is a game in the business-to-business market, where companies have the opportunity to tap into a new consumer base.

A more extensive list of sources with excerpts from them and a small conclusion can be found on my blog .

Well, the following note can also be considered there as a small lyrical digression about the realities of the virtual world - the Mujahideen of the time of the fading of Fever 2.0 .