« RIM Patent infringement case | Main | Gonzales speech »

January 31, 2006

The New Boom

Wired has an article on the boom and bust cycles of Silicon Valley in their latest article on the apparent bubble forming around Web 2.0 startups.


Technorati Tags: , ,

Posted at 11:40 AM in Business/Professional, Web/Tech |

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83452605c69e200e55035254c8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The New Boom:

Comments

single fin

ok ok i have a thought i want to toss at you. to lead into this comment by no means is this a pop shot at you. since i know your a VC guy ;-) your site seems more open to a place to toss ideas/ business thoughts out. so with that disclaimer added...maybe this post is more of a bridge idea then anything..or even a nerd rant in some lights.

which i think is what the writer is starting to infer by his article. however, part of my frustration about the dot.com bust leading into the 2.0 growth is that..(not to harp on the issue to live in the past) but often i feel the market overlooks the idea that VC's are just as responsible for driving the bust or a company/ market into a fire drill.

most (not all) of the VC money is from baby boomers who are interested in a few select things. most of the public eye tends to forget that VC money is not generated from "kids" generally under the age of 40. needless to say i attribute some of the flops and pressures to the VC money hungry baby boomer fat cats. who in part know in the back of their mind that gut feelings in business often tend to be true. so having the drive/ desire to be part of today's modern day equivalent (technology boom) to the industrial revolution (1940-1960ish) would be naive unless it's known that many ideas are going to blowup before lift off. kind of a setup in a way taking advantage of the general publics yern for cool growths, IPO's and CASH wants.
anybody who has been part of business 101 or inventions work will tell you 1.0 of anything is always buggy or flawed. thats just what we do and the way it is.

then again it's a small price to get to market first i suppose. (IE: IPO cash out on the short side rev return and or market space presence IE obvious names like amazon, ebay, etc)

dumb (if that can used as a term for innovation w/out hurting feelings) ideas are 20/20 in hindsight. how did they get funded is a better question. i mean...who is really at the wheel? better yet, if they did get money, how come SO much? i mean..VC's are just as responsible in my opinion. the old theory still applies of "a good idea is a good idea & a luke warm idea can be good if enough people believe in it." (IE: please see endless examples in the software industry)

then again maybe to be a financial visionary often at times deals with the reality that black is good red can be..both. unless it exceeds market pressures or the VC ROI. then again look at amazon. guess that looks more like a question then a comment.

i agree the bubble needed to happen to get everybody organized and whipped into mental shape. i agree with many points of the article but it's still virgin turf.
i think 2.0 will be a more teenager approach to the techy future. but that's tender age where those values shape the adult. might be a good time to be in the space the wired article is talking about.

sf

Posted by: single fin | February 01, 2006 at 12:07 PM

suirtiesk

surveys social network for public organizations http://facesepicentre.com/ classical social network [url=http://facesepicentre.com/]420 social network[/url]

Posted by: suirtiesk | December 23, 2011 at 12:29 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.