What prevents startups?

Hurray, 2008 was a breakthrough year in Russian start-ups. Finally flooded - 2-3 announcements per week. - But is it a breakthrough? In my opinion not. 95% of all new projects are copies of successful western services.
Not being a web development guru (this can be seen from the Procuringer opened by me), let me express my opinion based only on my own experience. On Habré three thousand active users, and how many have a self-sustaining (at least) site? - Shoemaker without shoes. But a personal blog is also an investment, even on the most rundown one can trade links. I think the domestic creators of startups interfere with two interrelated reasons: the myths, pushing on the wrong path, and inconsistency.

The problem is that investors have come to the Internet. Financial injections are not bad for us, web developers. Bad for startups, because the investor is ready to invest only in proven schemes in the western segment. And this leads to copying (yes, creative), which does not lead to good things, although with money you can “bleed in” anyone, sorry, ayhuilko. Therefore, 2008 is an attack of the clones, which, however, continues to this day.

The Internet bubble was blown away, but left a few myths that really hinder the development of Runet:
')
1. “Web 2.0 is poorly monetized” is a clear myth because:
- People write themselves, moderate themselves, etc., which means that the costs of filling the resource are reduced.
- Social networks promote themselves, which means the cost of advertising is sharply reduced.
Of course, there are problems with monetization, or rather, the effectiveness of advertising falls. But it is observed on television and on radio. I think the myth appeared because certain expectations of investors were not justified: the old methods of joining stopped working, and the new ones had not yet been invented.
So it is more honest to say that it is difficult to get excess profits on Web 2.0 projects.

2. “The engine needs to be written from scratch” - this is one of the most harmful myths of start-up building, which has destroyed a lot of projects. The fact is that any innovation is difficult for people to perceive, and usage skills are developing slowly. Compare such communication formats as mail, blog and forum: any Internet user can send an email, write to the forum somewhere half, and even fewer people can use the blog. Therefore, if you write “your engine”, then even with perfect usability, most of the audience will close the brewer for 30 seconds.

3. “A start-up needs an investor” - this is true, but investments are needed temporary, not financial.
Why do you need money Kisa ? Do the project in your spare time, and where you need specialists, ask your friends. Even if your idea is a reality show “burning a million dollars”, you can print firewood on a printer and shoot it on a digital camera. For a startup, experience is needed, and it can only be earned at the cost of “difficult mistakes”.

To illustrate the above, there is an example:
You can implement the “Bookmark Service” (for example, now it is 2003) on the free forum engine. Community collectors interesting links - please. Well, the tags will not be other features, but not in the same essence. To implement technically is simple. It is more difficult to fill and unleash, but even without an investor you can.

I think that the “big start-up” should go consistently, from simple to complex.
A start-up startup-caretaker, approximately along such a chain:

1. Thematic resource, for example, personal blog
2. Several blogs and splogs (contemptible moneymaking)
3. Collective project (it can already be called a startup)
4. Project with attraction of investments, real startup.

Something like this. And what's stopping you?