If it looks like a bubble, feels like a bubble and enough people call it a bubble, is it really one?
The bubble concept has been going for months — Business Week mentioned Bubble 2.0 back in February — but the current Bubble 2.0 meme may be traceable to VC David Hornick’s Oct. 24 post on VentureBlog.com about start-ups “being built to be bought.” Following the Web 2.0 conference, he wrote: “… when I hear large numbers of companies pitching themselves as excellent acquisition candidates before they’ve even gotten out of the gate I can’t help but think to myself that we are in the heart of Bubble 2.0. Sadly, only one thing follows Bubble 2.0 and that is Bust 2.0. On the good side, there’s always Web 3.0.” (He followed up with a podcast.)
A Mercury News article by Matt Marshall earlier this week follows up on the idea, looking at the infusion — and profusion — of VC capital in start-ups that may never be able to succeed on their own or that are in crowded categories where only one or two survivors are likely.
John Battelle says “no” on the NYT Op-Ed page with “Building A Better Boom“. He argues that the current web is a platform, unlike the first version that “was long on vision but short on execution and audience.” Investors are smarter, start-ups are cheaper, entreprenuers and geeks are running the show. Search is fueling advertising. And, drum roll, IPOs are few and far between.
Actually, I’m beginning to wonder if we’re in Beta 2.0
Subscriber content
?
Subscriber content comes from Gigaom Research, bridging the gap between breaking news and long-tail research. Visit any of our reports to learn more and subscribe.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments have been disabled for this post