2 ms·

nostrademons gave a fine answer to this. The fine point here is: there is a difference between a boom and a bubble. Boom == increase in activity supported by a

by sabat 20y ago

nostrademons gave a fine answer to this. The fine point here is: there is a difference between a boom and a bubble. Boom == increase in activity supported by actual innovation. Bubble == increase in activity based on marketing fluff or other unsustainable models. PG talks quite a lot about this kind of thing; in particular, he points out that a boom can sustain for as long as there is innovation (wealth-creation) to support it, and that there is no reason the economy can't support, say, 1000 people working on startups rather than 1000 people working for IBM.

mojuba 20y ago
Ok, isn't Web 2.0 a similar marketing fluff? I understand with all similarities it's not the same. I'm sure it is much better now, but add one more new factor, like the failure of Windows Vista for example, and you may have that critical mass for a new collapse.
- sabat 20y ago
  "add one more new factor, like the failure of Windows Vista for example, and you may have that critical mass for a new collapse" Forgive me, but I don't see the connection. How would the failure of Windows Vista do anything but help applications that run on the web? I can imagine some large things that could hurt this boom (economic collapse, maybe), but nothing small. Web 2.0 has a lot of hype right now, but that doesn't make it marketing fluff. There is real substance here (and real profits, real innovation, and real users). In contrast: here is a quick story about a company that I interviewed with in 1998. I don't remember the name; they were located South of Market in a really nice loft with lots of brick, glass, and chrome. Free lunch every day, free beverages, lots of perks. The business model: we are going to get your website's customers to fill out surveys. You are going to pay us for this. We will get the customers to fill out surveys by rewarding them with frequent-flier miles. I remember three things about this company, years later: how nice their loft was, how stupid and convoluted their business model was, and how arrogant they seemed to be about it. They acted like they were already a success. In contrast, btw, the startup I did join was operating out of a cluttered office in Palo Alto that they'd got a really good deal on. Junk was everywhere, and the Founder/CEO asked me if I minded. I told him, "hey, it looks like a real startup." That company is still in business today. Frequent-Flier-Miles-for-Surveys, Inc: not so much.
  - mojuba 20y ago
    Causes of some effect shouldn't necessarily be related, I was talking only about a critical mass, when causes add up. I understand what you are saying otherwise.

by sabat 20y ago

mojuba 20y ago

Ok, isn't Web 2.0 a similar marketing fluff? I understand with all similarities it's not the same. I'm sure it is much better now, but add one more new factor, like the failure of Windows Vista for example, and you may have that critical mass for a new collapse.

sabat 20y ago
"add one more new factor, like the failure of Windows Vista for example, and you may have that critical mass for a new collapse" Forgive me, but I don't see the connection. How would the failure of Windows Vista do anything but help applications that run on the web? I can imagine some large things that could hurt this boom (economic collapse, maybe), but nothing small. Web 2.0 has a lot of hype right now, but that doesn't make it marketing fluff. There is real substance here (and real profits, real innovation, and real users). In contrast: here is a quick story about a company that I interviewed with in 1998. I don't remember the name; they were located South of Market in a really nice loft with lots of brick, glass, and chrome. Free lunch every day, free beverages, lots of perks. The business model: we are going to get your website's customers to fill out surveys. You are going to pay us for this. We will get the customers to fill out surveys by rewarding them with frequent-flier miles. I remember three things about this company, years later: how nice their loft was, how stupid and convoluted their business model was, and how arrogant they seemed to be about it. They acted like they were already a success. In contrast, btw, the startup I did join was operating out of a cluttered office in Palo Alto that they'd got a really good deal on. Junk was everywhere, and the Founder/CEO asked me if I minded. I told him, "hey, it looks like a real startup." That company is still in business today. Frequent-Flier-Miles-for-Surveys, Inc: not so much.
- mojuba 20y ago
  Causes of some effect shouldn't necessarily be related, I was talking only about a critical mass, when causes add up. I understand what you are saying otherwise.