Web 2.0, Revenue Models and Profitability: A Web 1.0 Comparison
centernetworks.com
Web 2.0, Revenue Models and Profitability: A Web 1.0 Comparison
1–10 of 23 posts
Re: Web 2.0, Revenue Models and Profitability: A Web 1.0 Comparison
#2"Web 2.0 is not like Web 1.0. It's in a special (ed) class of its own."
The author clearly does not get it. Profitability is not a "pipe dream" for companies like Digg and Facebook. If profitability was the only objective, I'm sure they could achieve it. The pipe dream is attaining the massive scale necessary to build a publicly traded company.
Re: Web 2.0, Revenue Models and Profitability: A Web 1.0 Comparison
#3"Web 2.0 is not like Web 1.0. It's in a special (ed) class of its own." The author clearly does not get it. Profitability is not a "pipe dream" for companies like Digg and Facebook. If profitability was the only objective, I'm sure they could achieve it. The pipe dream is attaining the massive scale necessary to build a publicly traded company.
Actually I think you don't get it. What you're missing is that the whole purpose of this article is to refute the thinking that you obviously subscribe to (given your comment).
So it isn't that he doesn't see your point of view it's that he thinks you are wrong (he obviously sees your point of view because he wrote a whole article that's clearly intended to refute it)
It seems to me that, by thinking he must be too stupid to see your point, it's you who are missing the point. I mean, he might not be right but at least he's got enough perspective to see that there's another side to the argument.
Re: Web 2.0, Revenue Models and Profitability: A Web 1.0 Comparison
#4Am I the only one who remembers the first Web 2.0 companies, before the 2.0 buzz word was around?
I'm talking about Flickr, the early Flickr, how lean and neat was that!
Can we now look forward to more creative and lean things? At least until Web 3.0 rises to drown it all in money and unoriginality, again.
Re: Web 2.0, Revenue Models and Profitability: A Web 1.0 Comparison
#5Am I the only one who remembers the first Web 2.0 companies, before the 2.0 buzz word was around? I'm talking about Flickr, the early Flickr, how lean and neat was that! Can we now look forward to more creative and lean things? At least until Web 3.0 rises to drown it all in money and unoriginality, again.
not to mention that Flickr was profitable, and could have actually turned into a big business on its own, and possibly into a traded company, too.
Re: Web 2.0, Revenue Models and Profitability: A Web 1.0 Comparison
#6"Web 2.0 is not like Web 1.0. It's in a special (ed) class of its own." The author clearly does not get it. Profitability is not a "pipe dream" for companies like Digg and Facebook. If profitability was the only objective, I'm sure they could achieve it. The pipe dream is attaining the massive scale necessary to build a publicly traded company.
[deleted]
Re: Web 2.0, Revenue Models and Profitability: A Web 1.0 Comparison
#7"Web 2.0 is not like Web 1.0. It's in a special (ed) class of its own." The author clearly does not get it. Profitability is not a "pipe dream" for companies like Digg and Facebook. If profitability was the only objective, I'm sure they could achieve it. The pipe dream is attaining the massive scale necessary to build a publicly traded company.
You want to make a company an attractive IPO target, make it profitable!!!
Re: Web 2.0, Revenue Models and Profitability: A Web 1.0 Comparison
#8"Web 2.0 is not like Web 1.0. It's in a special (ed) class of its own." The author clearly does not get it. Profitability is not a "pipe dream" for companies like Digg and Facebook. If profitability was the only objective, I'm sure they could achieve it. The pipe dream is attaining the massive scale necessary to build a publicly traded company.
[deleted]
Re: Web 2.0, Revenue Models and Profitability: A Web 1.0 Comparison
#9Someone mentioned a while back that advertising is a business model for web properties just as much as it is for tv shows/sitcoms. The shows that make money have a significant loyal audience. The few that charge money to the end users have a content their audience can't seem to live without (read porn).
Re: Web 2.0, Revenue Models and Profitability: A Web 1.0 Comparison
#10"Web 2.0 is not like Web 1.0. It's in a special (ed) class of its own." The author clearly does not get it. Profitability is not a "pipe dream" for companies like Digg and Facebook. If profitability was the only objective, I'm sure they could achieve it. The pipe dream is attaining the massive scale necessary to build a publicly traded company.
Actually I think you don't get it. What you're missing is that the whole purpose of this article is to refute the thinking that you obviously subscribe to (given your comment). So it isn't that he doesn't see your point of view it's that he thinks you are wrong (he obviously sees your point of view because he wrote a whole article that's clearly intended to refute it) It seems to me that, by thinking he must be too s…
Couldn't have said it any better. Companies like Digg & Facebook, it is my belief, don't even have IPO even on their radar.
He is 100% right when he says that "building a product and building a business around a product are two very different things". This is the problem that Web 2.0 companies realize after they start and gain critical mass. Sustaining that growth rate costs significant capital regardless of what open-source technologies or inexpensive hosting platforms you build upon.
The real problem, in my eyes, is that VCs and other investors see the critical mass first and dump loads of cash into these startups without demanding a viable revenue model and I don't mean relying entirely on AdSense revenue. While Adsense can be a good starting point to generating some revenue it should not be looked upon as a means to an end.
The problem with Web 2.0 companies is that they all have one underlying theme in their business plans. Gain traction, obtain substantial outside investment, and then move on to something else by selling out to the highest bidder.
While I do believe that companies like Digg and Facebook could generate substantial revenues, what is their motivation right now to do so? Investors continue to dump money into them and investors are fighting to own a piece of their "empires" without viable revenues so why deviate from that course. Right now they are only looking to grow that critical mass further and eventually look for the highest bidder that will move the founders to the next project.
Web 1.0 companies (or pre-bubble burst companies) saw IPOs as a viable means to an end. They were focused on generating revenues as large revenues at the time equaled successful IPOs.