What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
55 Comments
- FoxFaction, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28Maybe im just being ignorant here, but I don't think web 2.0 can "burst" because no one has a ***** clue what it is. The internet is the internet. As much as any made up media buzzword can "burst", then yes, I suppose so.
- hello2usir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18And hordes of pretentious bloggers prancing about the "blogosphere" whilst sipping on their lattes, doling out uninteresting opinions about politics and other mundane topics.
- totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Web 2.0 is driven by one thing: Google Adsense cash flow. The bubble will pop if/when Google does.
- strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Here's a definition for you: user generated content, social, pastel colors (may or may not be required)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5And where does Digg fit into this? Where is it going in the future without investment? Advertising (most users here will likey adblock most). Subscription (they will lose most people with that). Favoured links (then it is no longer truely user generated content).
Seriously, it would be nice to know what is going to keep Digg alive. Please don't suggest donations as that is a charity not a business. - pinoyboy82, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6*ding* I think we have a winner
- dearreid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The barrier, of course, is getting enough users to contribute. There are countless failed Web 2.0 sites out there that just never generated a big enough user base to be worthwhile... look at all the digg clones like http://adveracio.us/ that fizzled because users either didn't stick around to keep contributing, or the user base wasn't large enough to be relevant.
- drepmoreh, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"There are virtually no barriers to entry in Web 2.0 and therefore the ability to develop a unique solution and sustain a competitive advantage is virtually nil."
Virtually no barriers? There are no barriers god damnit. How can put a barrier around something that doesn't exist? It's like putting a barbed wire fence around God. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5but.. .1.0 and 2.0 have 1 thing in common . .they both don't exist. The web is the web is the web is the. . .etc.
It's time that the world stopped following marketeers as soon as they are bored. Web 2.0 is the biggest hype after the internet-investment-bubble, and it will pop at the same rate. - glock22ownr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Web 2.0 is the masses finding out about the web, blogging, and forums. I think the same thing will happen with this bubble, it will eventually burst. Companies that have a good profitability model and provide an actual service will survive while other wannabes will die off. Regardless the point is that investors are being duped into the .Boom 2.0 and eventually when web sites are making money primarily off investors and not customers, their doors will close and we will see a crash. That being said, if I hear one more exec type mention Web 2.0 to me I swear to God I am going to go postal.
- Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I haven't said this in a while:
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk - petepete, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The Web 2.0 bubble will not burst; it will fade out.
- trollenlord, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Captain obvious to the rescue! Lol
- francisidada, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i can't believe people analyze this way ...
Anyway the internet bust of 2000 - 2001 was not a burst of ideas but a financial burst. Investors put money into companies, both publicly and privately traded, hoping to reap huge amounts of profits almost immediately.
A bubble has definitely started in the internet again, this time lead by the phrase - web 2.0 - wether this bubble would burst or not is yet to be seen. Private investors may get their hands burnt but with lessons of 4 years ago, many would have diversified their portofolios so as to mitigate the risks of any internet company never turning a profit. As for the companies themselves, they have less of an expectation in reward, although undoubtedly the youtube story spurred so many ... and the stupid mainstream media constantly harps on the two founders ( all ***** stories in TIME magazine, although a good piece of information I got from the year end issue is that steve churley is an in-law to james clark of netscape fame).
To sustain this bubble, the internet has to diverse away from the personal computer, it is trying to go to mobile phones but would only be able to achieve that when most phones have wifi capabilites. In addition there should be a merger between internet and mainstream media, like watch tv shows on your computer, easily and without paying extra, see popular youtube videos on the tv, have a print catalogue for myspace, have real ebay shops on the corner, buy all more inventory from wal mart store without having a credit card, this would be hard but we would get there, THE FUTURE IS NOT YET HERE. - jer2eydevil88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Facebook has been profitable, I have heard rumors of over 100million a year in profit.
The only concrete evidence I have to go on at this moment though is this quote
"Hughes said Thefacebook turns a profit, mostly from advertising. He refused to disclose the private company's earnings."
From http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,68083,00.html
Regardless most investment firms today just won't touch a web based company that isn't turning a profit before they got there. The web 1.0 bust taught a bunch of very good lessons, it also built the foundation for this web 2.0 growth. - greenbriel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't care if it is a bubble, I just want pastel colored websites with gradients to keep providing great services for free.
- greenbriel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Doh, wrong post. Digg down please.
- francisidada, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I took a look at your site which has a very nice design. Are you into CSS and html or motivated by the youtubes and facebooks you learnt those very quick? How much time did you invest it in, depending on your qualifications and current job, your time investment should count for something.
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's more of a pustule than a bubble.
- jaredvolkl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Will Web 2.0 burst? In a word, no. I think, for the most part, companies are being smarter this time around. Of course you're always going to see the great ideas get copycatted, and those are the companies that you won't hear of in a year or two. But I think the big players, Google (Gmail, Google Docs, Google Calendar, YouTube, etc.), Yahoo (Flickr, Delicious, etc.), and Wikipedia are still going to be around longterm. Look at Amazon, they survived. So did Monster. Eventually, yes, something better is going to come along and all the bangwagon-jumpers are going to hitch a ride on whatever that trend is, but I think there will still be a core "class of 2.0" that survives.
- Toast1185, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What made Web 1.0 a bubble wasn't really the fact that there were too many websites out there. It was that none of them made any money. What you had was inexplicable investment and venture capital being poured down the drain for ideas that simply didn't have legs. Google is already posting profits, so is yahoo and some of the other big name sites such as facebook have forecast profitability in the coming years.
Websites have come and gone long before there was money made in them, that is not something that is likely to change. The difference between 'web 2.0' and 'web 1.0' is now the schmucks on wall street are being more sensible with their valuations. You are seeing fewer internet companies with bad business models with publicly traded stocks, because people just won't snap them up. Who cares if some bandwagon 'me too' sites go out of business, what are you are left with are solid internet companies making real dollars and buying up legitimate revenue streams in other internet companies. - jer2eydevil88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You can think what you want. I think dismissing the difference between web 1.0 and web 2.0 is like trying to say that we don't learn from our mistakes. Not all of us can be the leader of the free world but the rest of us can in fact learn from the past.
Web 1.0 was basically about throwing money at ideas in every direction and seeing what happened when the dust settled. Web 2.0 is a matured more thought out process that looks at audiences or customers and builds based on their needs. - Arkonnan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As a marketing buzzword, yes, "web 2.0" will eventually burst. But as far as collaborate user-driven media goes, it was around long before sites like Digg brought it into the mainstream and it will be around long after venture capitalists stop pumping money into every site with a gradient/drop shadow-laden logo.
- HellifIno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Ignorantly skipping previous comments, I'll give this:
The person who coined the term "Web 2.0" originally also tried to RETRACT that statement. But it was too late. The masses heard and adopted. Yes, it IS somewhat new/different, but it does not fundamentally change the internet at all. It's more like Web 1.1 .. or maybe 1.3.
It's more like "Hey! New tools!" rather than "OMG this is totally new/different!".
And yeah, I'll get bured, no doubt. Meh. - Toast1185, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Skizmo, you're right, in terms of our intranets 1.0 and 2.0 don't really mean anything. It is all a bunch of marketing financial hype. Probably a mixture of the first horrible experience with internet stocks (look we're new and improved =) ) and the obvious tech reference. You'd never see Wal-Mart 2.0. I couldn't agree more
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Click them? I can't even see them.
- zingelpixel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
Perfectly put. Ajaxian TechCrunch GigaOm - fintheman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Dugg down for Web 2.0 usage.
- pirashkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What is Web 2.0 for donkeys? http://www.fouman.com/news/0612_What_Web_20.htm
- panique, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yeah, that _AND_ figuring out how to make some money for the investors. I don't think the ads on digg are really generating all that much revenue; does anyone actually click them?
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You meant to say, "Hell, yes!"
But really, Web 2.0 isn't soaking up the lunatic VC that the dot-com bubble did, so it's more of a mindshare bubble bursting. And please, burst soon. - eceres, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@francisidada
Thanks for the complement.
I myself am more of a back end person, my partner is good with site design. The site has been nights and weekends over several months with being opened to the public (very soft launch) in November. - eceres, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm surprised no one mentioned the important part of a lot of sites are self funding as making a site is very cheap, only real cost is server needs...
for instance the following site has/is being developed by 2 people with ft jobs (myself 1 of them) completely out of pocket...
http://podcasts.grepr.com - imyke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1=]
thx - greenbriel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1From the article: "Writing in his bog..."
Well that's odd, but who cares where he does his writing? ;-> - kevdotbadger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Hahahahaha! Myspace....web 2.0? It's barely up to the standards of web 1.0. I've seen geocities pages with more qualities than myspace.
- jake13jake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yea, fin, 2.0 is annoying to listen to. It sounds like AOL. Thank you Time Magazine for popularizing such an annoying term.
Anyways, How do social activities burst?
Did e-mail burst?
Did IM burst?
The market won't burst, it will just become very difficult to enter.
The exception would probably be social bookmarking, where mediums could become cooperative and possibly even have a client interface. - enharmonix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@random: I'd think users smart enough to install adblock would also be smart enough to set up exceptions for ads on sites they want to receive ad revenue. Also, I don't think AdBlock blocks AdSense by default -- the trick is not so much to stop advertising as to stop advertising that interferes with the content it's supposedly sponsoring. If you care about Digg, add exceptions for their banner ads or encourage them to switch to less obtrusive ads that won't be blocked by AdBlock.
- 955701, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0
This just in: Competition in a capitalistic society where the government doesn't tell you what to start a business in has a high mortality rate for copycat businesses
More breaking News at 11pm.
Can someone tell me, what's the difference between these technology "bubbles" the media keeps mumbling about and other sectors economics "trends". We all know that tech changes rapidly - shouldn't the trends as well? - Geekbeard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ Cybermort
Like the corks of champagne bottles on New Years Eve. - Bols2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's a Bubble but sexier than the "1.0" one.
A bubble with lots of reflective logos on it, lots of tags, lots of user generated content and lots of eye-candy stuff.. And OH! I forgot those stupid buzz words.
Just A Comment. BETA
tags: web 2.0, bubble, bull*hit - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0who the ***** decided on the .0 part?
i'd say it was a reasonable term if they called it web 1 and web 2, but the introduction of the .0 makes me cringe at it. why would you have to be that specific to significant figures if you didn't plan to have a web 1.5 or a web 2.1 or a web 2.01RC2 beta ? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1User Generated Content can't really burst, if people don't show up on the internet, and people start using something else, then sure
- jer2eydevil88, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Anyone who wants to see an example of a web 2.0 website that gets users to contribute in a rewarding way.
http://www.digg.com - joehobbes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1IMO, its not the same because none of these Web 2.0 companies are publicly traded companies. The last bubble was a big deal because everybody was buying inflated Net stocks.
Now it's just big companies and venture capitalists putting out the big money. - cybermort, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Google will POP???
- CrazySven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+02.0 the second coming of lay offs..........
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0francisidada nailed it. The internet is full of nerds and without integration into mainstream media it'll never succeed. Look at the name Web 2.0 give me a break. Either web 2.0 becomes more mainstream or the whole world has to become nerds.
- AgentBleu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The http://bootstrap-network.com/blog/17 Bubble is Going To Burst - Once Again!
In the beginning there was resistance, lots of resistance. Then after a couple of high profile sellouts their was panic, every speculator was going to be rich, quickly followed by the big bang. What a ride.
What caused the last big bang is about to cause the next even the mainstream press can feel it. But this time the big balled investors are a little more cautious than before, yet it seems just as stupid.
I recall one of the first bangers Lastminute.com in a high profile sellout got 850 million UKP, valuing Lastminute on a par with W.H.SMITHs. This was for a little domain name that they picked up for 10 dollars, a couple of PHP coders, and a double page spread in the Daily Mail singing their praises. What a scam.
After that everyone was hooked and they were all going to be rich. Overnight the internet changed from being a bit geeky, very innovative, and strictly non-commercial to one big supermarket with every vender spamming you with their latest rubbish.
Of course it went pop, and when it did it was great. For all the commercial interests that were polluting cyberspace with their get rich quick spam, had had their balls crushed and in the aftermath we were left with a much quieter terrain where the speculators had been burnt and innovation could once again flourish.
Don get me wrong I have nothing against making money but the nature of these speculators have a very negative impact on the general terrain of the internet and heres why.
Firstly the vast majority of the venture capital investment that is injected into startups is used to not only prop up donkeys but more importantly is distorting the general playing field.
This manifests in some very destructive ways. Noticeably, most of the real innovation that is at the core of the new functions that emerge online, is created by small groups of programmers / designers who tackle problems and create ingenues solutions which enrich our everyday lives. These are largely small groups of underfunded (if at all) individuals.
Coupled with this parody is the power of the press, and I'm not talking about the mainstream press I am referring to the new breed of Power-Ranger blogers who just like in the days of the specific industry related 'trade magazines' are the current imbeciles of their time.
So you have a small group of technology related Blogers who have managed to harness a captive audience but who are ignorant to programming, design, and largely technology for that matter but who have found themselves with the 'important' title of chef bloger, and who make it their business to blog about what they consider is newsworthy or important.
Just as with the old trade press journals you are left with a corporatised view on the world where the dinner table talk ranges from who's been fired to who's just managed to get VC to the tune of 568 million.
Clearly this is the scope of the general table chatter and a brief look at Michael Arrington Techcrunch you will see the same old traditional trade journal style of so-called news (hysteria) being covered.
But burred by these trade like journals is the real startup discussion. The real news is not in who's about to loose 586 Million because they have invested it into a pile of donkey ***** but rather what's happening on the ground.
The innovative ground floor is once again being crushed by an ambitious bunch of ignorant money grabbing speculators who in their hysteria do not know the value of a domain name let alone an online travel agent.
This is not to say that innovation will stop or the current wave of Web2.0 startups won't flourish as some will, but the survivors of the next big bang wont be the those empty black holes who are being jacked up by VC, instead they will be the the low profile (unfunded) innovators who continue at their own pace despite the noise of what's supposed to be hot, in the race to be a me-too copycat company. - jake13jake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Amazon's retained earnings account is still referred to as "accumulated deficit."
At least accumulated deficit is shrinking (maybe investors might finally get returns in a few years). -
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is