3 ms·
Kleiner: Web 2.0 is So Over, Dude
- tlrobinson 19y agoI think Tim O'Reilly summed it up pretty well: "If a company needs to identify itself as a "Web 2.0" company rather than describing the problem they are solving, or the opportunity they are creating, then they are just playing the buzzword game, and aren't worth investing in." Some of the ideas of "Web 2.0" are definitely worth pursuing, but those alone aren't a replacement for a legitimately good business idea. Honestly, there's a lot of fluff out there under the "Web 2.0" name, and I think that's what Kleiner wants to stay away from.
- DanielBMarkham 19y ago"As far as I'm concerned, if KP's comment means less money flowing into questionable startups with no business plan and a stupid name that's missing a bunch of vowels, I'm all for that" I can hear the roar out there now -- "Hey! Add some more vowels in there and crank up the business plan software!" It's funny that everybody wants you to describe your business in as quick a manner as possible, and then there's this whole subculture of buzzwords either being good or bad. "I'm a YC company" is supposed to be shorthand for one thing (supposedly good), while "We're web 2.0" was at one point hot, but now not. I know what the point of the pitch is, but after you get through your value proposition, your demo, and your growth plans, you want the other person to understand it's something web-based, interactive, and not an old-fashioned architecture. "Web 2.0" does that. This is like dating a fickle person! No matter what you do, you never get it right. So I guess you need to come up with an elevator pitch that conveys the maximum amount of useful information _without_ using well-known buzz words that have fallen out of favor. Good luck guessing which buzz words are okay or not with which person. Might as well throw darts at a dartboard. (grin)