US investors startups Web 2.0: your song is sung!

I recently had one "anonymous critic". He fell in love with me after the note “ Y Combinator is a faded icon of the Fever 2.0 times ”, which I made a link to Habrahabr. He loved him so much that he did not hesitate to throw mud at me, without disdaining numerous juggling and juggling. And all for the fact that I dared to call things, as it seemed to me, with their names: the days of start-up culture inherent in Web 2.0 are a thing of the past, and this cannot affect even 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 very direction of Web 2.0, the supporter of which I continue to be. And all my readers know it. I did not doubt the real achievements of the Y Combinator, which was often described in my blog. By the way, one of the first in Runet. Although he never asked for an investment (one of the distortions of my favorite “critic”). True, one time was going to do it. The talk in my article was only about the Web 2.0 business model and its corresponding investment policy, which is in many ways quite speculative, or rather, “pyramid-like”.

In my article, which caused, literally, the sacred anger of my "critic", I made, it would seem, all the necessary links. Nevertheless, among other things, he was charged with concealing sources of information.
')
Therefore, I decided to help my critics. Below are just some quotes - excerpts. And only about the business model. No deviations to the other side! If you want, you can read the rest (given the most informative links!) I cite only some of the most recent publications that confirm my point of view. And from the most reputable sources. No “emotions and interpretations” on my part, of which I received an accusation from another commentator.

I apologize, but still I have to give it all in translation. So, do not blame me for the quality. Although for investment, I still thought it necessary to give explanations on the text on the translation of some idioms and / or abbreviations. For example, “RIP” on the tombstone depicted in the figure stands for “Rest in Peace” - an idiom equivalent to the Russian “peace to your dust.” So…


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

... nevertheless, questions about finance behind Facebook’s soaring growth remain. The company raised 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% share. The figure, which displays the overall estimate of Facebook at $ 15 billion.

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

“What Facebook doesn’t have yet is a guaranteed success ( slam-dunk is a basketball trick that ensures 100% of the ball hit the basket when a basketball player jumps high and pushes him there - AM),” says Adam Lashinsky ) in the magazine Fortune - “The sale of advertising brings income, but it is not very profitable, if at all, it is”.

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

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

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

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

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, there have been attempts to turn Web 2.0 into a business model, but all of them failed, and were finally buried in early 2008, four years from the moment when Kool-Aid Web 2.0 ( Kool-Aid is one type of sugary drink for children - AM) was first presented as a solution - by the fact that it never turned into. Now, believers in the non-existent “Web 2.0 business model” are in the position of Wall Street, but without any hope of a state buy -back parachute ( bail-out– is now used in the USA to remove some strategically important financial institutions and enterprises from the crisis state - A .M.).

I do not claim that Panic-2008 killed Web 2.0. I only say that Web 2.0 has never been a means of generating revenue. And many software companies and startups today are in Dead End (2.0).

I also say that many businesses that have called themselves Web 2.0 sites (due to the lack of a better name) will disappear due to the recession. No one 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 Web 2.0 Startups: 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 print and web versions differ somewhat.

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

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

“So much venture money was lost in this sector (black hole) that the very word“ Web 2.0 ”could easily turn into a curse of four letters if it had not already turned,” said one investor ( hereinafter the names of investors and companies are omitted You can find them in the original - AM). He also suggested that the problems of investors could go beyond the temporal limits of the crisis, given the imminent retirement of the military generation (baby boomers) and a decrease in consumer spending.

“If you define Web 2.0 as being focused on individual consumers, then the next 20 years, I think, are coming very hard,” 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 are irrevocably a thing of the past ... And this is despite the fact that, according to Forrester , 85% of Americans will use the social web by the end of this year.

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

A more extensive list of sources with translations of extracts from them and a small conclusion can be found in my blog .

Well, the next article there can also be viewed as a small lyrical digression about the realities of the virtual world - the Mujahideen of the times of the Fever 2.0 extinction .