4 ms·

What really killed Netscape was Microsoft — but if you're looking for a real example of the web 1.0 bubble you can look at theGlobe.com (which by the way was a

What really killed Netscape was Microsoft — but if you're looking for a real example of the web 1.0 bubble you can look at theGlobe.com (which by the way was a social media website). My guess is that some of these companies will crash and burn, but somewhere in that class could be the next Google.

hartror 15y ago
Exactly, LinkedIn doesn't have a competitor that can position itself to scoop its customers out from underneath its very nose.
- raganwald 15y ago
  If I worked at LinkedIn, I would spend a lot of time thinking about what to do if Facebook ever decides that you can have both "friends" and "business contacts."
  - lpolovets 15y ago
    (disclosure: I used to work at LinkedIn and at Google, though not on Orkut) I think Orkut provided a strong datapoint for your question. They supported a professional and personal profile when they launched, and the overall finding was that a single site supporting social + professional networks is a turn-off because most people want to keep those networks separate (since many of your friends have no interest in your resume, and since you don't want your boss to see your pictures at some party). One potential issues is that there are really 3 groups of people: friends, coworkers, and "both". For each posting, photo, action, etc, you want one of the three groups to see it. That becomes a hassle compared to just keeping friends and coworkers in separate social networks (one pitfall, though, is that using two social networks makes it hard to send messages to friends and coworkers without having to write the message twice). That said, Facebook has a ton of smart people, so maybe that can figure out something that Google could not. One last thing: I think part of the perceived value of LinkedIn is that they have not deviated significantly from their goal of being The professional network. I remember it took them a long time to even add profile photos, because there was a debate about whether those were more "professional" or "fun". I think it would be as hard for FB to become a professional network as it would for LinkedIn to become a social network (while not losing its professional member base)
code_duck 15y ago
I agree, though the author says others may not may who Netscape was, it doesn't seem the author has a clear idea. Netscape wasn't the classic bubble company at all.
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  He wasn't saying Netscape (or LinkedIn was a bubble companies. Rather, looking back, it is simply a marker signifying the beginning of the inflation of the bubble.
gaius 15y ago
No, that's simply not true. Netscape's strategy was always to make money from its server products, I quote Jim Clark "I'm building printing presses, but first I've got to teach people to read" - that's why they gave away the browser, to build a market for servers. What killed Netscape is that version 3 of their server was a dog, and everyone switched to Apache or Zeus. I was there.
- code_duck 15y ago
  I thought Netscape used to charge for the browser - it was $35 if I recall correctly. Hence, MS was plotting to cut off their 'air supply' by giving away IE, removing NS's source of revenue.
  - gaius 15y ago
    They charged people who would want support, it was always free to people who didn't need/want it. My employer at the time spent 6-figures at a time on Netscape server products, for ourselves and our clients, we must have spent millions with them. Then version 3 came out and we either stuck to 2 or moved off Netscape platform entirely. And that was a big deal, since we had written loads of NSAPI code! But that's what killed Netscape.

hartror 15y ago

Exactly, LinkedIn doesn't have a competitor that can position itself to scoop its customers out from underneath its very nose.

raganwald 15y ago
If I worked at LinkedIn, I would spend a lot of time thinking about what to do if Facebook ever decides that you can have both "friends" and "business contacts."
- lpolovets 15y ago
  (disclosure: I used to work at LinkedIn and at Google, though not on Orkut) I think Orkut provided a strong datapoint for your question. They supported a professional and personal profile when they launched, and the overall finding was that a single site supporting social + professional networks is a turn-off because most people want to keep those networks separate (since many of your friends have no interest in your resume, and since you don't want your boss to see your pictures at some party). One potential issues is that there are really 3 groups of people: friends, coworkers, and "both". For each posting, photo, action, etc, you want one of the three groups to see it. That becomes a hassle compared to just keeping friends and coworkers in separate social networks (one pitfall, though, is that using two social networks makes it hard to send messages to friends and coworkers without having to write the message twice). That said, Facebook has a ton of smart people, so maybe that can figure out something that Google could not. One last thing: I think part of the perceived value of LinkedIn is that they have not deviated significantly from their goal of being The professional network. I remember it took them a long time to even add profile photos, because there was a debate about whether those were more "professional" or "fun". I think it would be as hard for FB to become a professional network as it would for LinkedIn to become a social network (while not losing its professional member base)

code_duck 15y ago

I agree, though the author says others may not may who Netscape was, it doesn't seem the author has a clear idea. Netscape wasn't the classic bubble company at all.

SoftwareMaven 15y ago
He wasn't saying Netscape (or LinkedIn was a bubble companies. Rather, looking back, it is simply a marker signifying the beginning of the inflation of the bubble.

gaius 15y ago

No, that's simply not true. Netscape's strategy was always to make money from its server products, I quote Jim Clark "I'm building printing presses, but first I've got to teach people to read" - that's why they gave away the browser, to build a market for servers. What killed Netscape is that version 3 of their server was a dog, and everyone switched to Apache or Zeus. I was there.

code_duck 15y ago
I thought Netscape used to charge for the browser - it was $35 if I recall correctly. Hence, MS was plotting to cut off their 'air supply' by giving away IE, removing NS's source of revenue.
- gaius 15y ago
  They charged people who would want support, it was always free to people who didn't need/want it. My employer at the time spent 6-figures at a time on Netscape server products, for ourselves and our clients, we must have spent millions with them. Then version 3 came out and we either stuck to 2 or moved off Netscape platform entirely. And that was a big deal, since we had written loads of NSAPI code! But that's what killed Netscape.