The New Brat Pack of Silicon Valley 146
bart_scriv writes "BusinessWeek looks at the current entrepreneurs of Web 2.0 via the lens of Kevin Rose and Digg. Although the article focuses on the rise and success of Digg, it also looks at the ethos of Web 2.0 and its successful companies, including YouTube, Del.icio.us, Facebook and Xfire. From the article: 'Clearly much has changed since 1999, and Rose and his fellow wealth punks have little in common with the sharp-talking MBAs in crisp khakis and blue button-downs who rushed the Valley as the NASDAQ climbed. In the late 1990s, entrepreneurs were the supplicants, and Sand Hill Road, dotted with venture-capital firms, was the mecca. Dot-commers relied on VCs for the millions needed to buy hardware, rent servers, hire designers, and advertise like crazy to bring in the eyeballs. For their big stakes of, say, $15 million for 20% of a company, venture capitalists received board seats, control of the management levers, and most of the equity. Now, it's more like: Maybe we'll let you throw a few bucks our way -- if you get it. Otherwise, get lost.'"
So are any of the Brat Pack profitable? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So are any of the Brat Pack profitable? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So are any of the Brat Pack profitable? (Score:4, Insightful)
/Mikael J
Re:So are any of the Brat Pack profitable? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So are any of the Brat Pack profitable? (Score:2)
If there's one company that will change the world in the way the dot-com's never did, and in a way that is more fundamentally sustainable, it is cr
Re:So are any of the Brat Pack profitable? (Score:1, Interesting)
My 401k and bank acco
Re:So are any of the Brat Pack profitable? (Score:2)
Re:So are any of the Brat Pack profitable? (Score:2)
Indeed. Maybe he "gets it" (life, that is) in a way that the ostentatiously affluent don't. I've been around successful people of both stripes, and I've always found the ones that are incessantly driven to display their wealth to be oddly pathetic in that way. It's as if they're desperately trying to conform to perceived societal expectations of how "rich guys" are supposed to behave, rather than living t
Re:So are any of the Brat Pack profitable? (Score:2)
But a Golf? I could see a GTI, but if you had some cash surely you'd want something a little FUN to drive. (Assuming you don't go during rush hour).
Re:So are any of the Brat Pack profitable? (Score:2)
Oh, didn't see that.
Well, never mind...
lessons to web 2.0 CEOs (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So are any of the Brat Pack profitable? (Score:2)
Re:So are any of the Brat Pack profitable? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So are any of the Brat Pack profitable? (Score:2)
They also own a Boeing 767, so I'd say the Prius is more of an environmental statement
I think the 767 is an environmental statement, though not one they intended. The Prius is more along the lines of PR.
Re:So are any of the Brat Pack profitable? (Score:1)
Re:So are any of the Brat Pack profitable? (Score:1)
Re:So are any of the Brat Pack profitable? (Score:3, Informative)
It does however, thanks to the team of legal snakes hired to draft its licence agreements, own the rights to everything posted on it. So one day, in theory, they could sift through the dreadful noise that is its video contributions for those few pearls and subsequently sell them.
Thoroughly screwing the original film maker in the process.
Now, there is no evidence that I've seen that YouTube is evil per se, however the licence agreement look
Re:So are any of the Brat Pack profitable? (Score:1)
If they truly "own the rights to everything posted", then I'd certainly not post anything. However, as long as their licence doesn't restrict me in any way, then it really doesn't matter. They're just taking what I gave them and doing what I said that they could do with it.
YouTube content rights (Score:2)
Only if:
Moreover, if YouTube ever tried to do somet
Re:So are any of the Brat Pack profitable? (Score:2)
Unless of course, it turns out that the people who posted the videos didn't have the right to post them in the first place, meaning youtube gets sued out of existence.
Re:So are any of the Brat Pack profitable? (Score:4, Informative)
Thoroughly screwing the original film maker in the process.
Oh baloney.
Here's what it says: [youtube.com] What is so hard to understand about that?
You don't want them to redistribute your creation anymore?
Then take it off the damn website fer chrissakes!
Either way personally, I would never ever post anything on that site.
Stupid is as stupid does.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Re:So are any of the Brat Pack profitable? (Score:2)
If that was YouTube's goal, they're going about it in completely the wrong way. YouTube cannot just sell a property- or even make a "YouTube's Greatest Hits" DVD or TV show-- without extensive clearances from all parties involved
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other news (Score:2)
Re:In other news (Score:3, Interesting)
8) What About the Slashdot Story Submission Queue?
by nullspace
I think it would be interesting to be able to view the story submission queue. That is, what type of stories are being submitted, which stories are being rejected and why, and other interesting trivia. Would you allow users to be able to view this queue, and if not, why?
Hemos:
One comment: Having us write rejections is probably impossible. I've tried to do the math, but considering the sheer amount of
Re:In other news (Score:2)
Not what could have been, what is. The fact that Slashdot's set-up couldn't make the idea work doesn't mean other sites, such as Digg, can't do so.
Of course, whether Digg can maintain its grand position in the site rankings for as long as Slashdot has been around is another question entirely. There are reasons that I still visit Slashdot far more often, and those reasons generally relate to the fact that there is some editorial control on stories and a reasonably powerful mo
Re:In other news (Score:2)
</offtopic>
Re:In other news (Score:2)
Re:In other news (Score:2)
* 2006-08-03 10:09:01 Movie To See - Freedom to Fascism, smell the pain (Politics,Movies) (rejected)
* 2006-05-20 05:08:27 RFID hacking easy as 1.2.3... (Hardware,Security) (rejected)
* 2006-03-17 23:50:45 Mass Media Cover-up (Politics,Media) (rejected)
Yeah, I think its all auto reject, and only they look at 'friends' stories.
Youre too big slashdot, you are mainstream and are not 'cool', bound to the corporate
Xfire? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, Xfire?
Am I the only one who hasn't heard of Xfire or/and it's success?
Re:Xfire? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Xfire? (Score:2)
Does any site created in 2003 or later count as web 2.0? By this logic, if you have a service on/after 2003 and it has a windows
Re:Xfire? (Score:1)
Re:Xfire? (Score:2, Funny)
oh wait.. no xfire is a boardgame where you shoot marbles at the person oposite you to make goals.
Re:Xfire? (Score:2, Informative)
Chip Kellam's Gamebattles is my pick for the next one to get picked up. And Chip is the classic Brat Packer. Hope he's on the next Business Week...
Good ol' Supply and demand (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, not too many people want to go down the dangerous road of self employment in the IT sector after the dot.com bubble burst. More so since if you have experience, are a good coder, know your stuff and don't quote "web design" as the core feature of your CV, you have no troubles finding a moderately to well paying job. Those would be the people to go for self employment, though, because without any experience (and connections) in the market, self employment is suicide.
In other words, there's a lot of investment money and not many people daring to pick it up. It kinda feels like dot.com all over again.
Re:Good ol' Supply and demand (Score:2)
I have to refute these statements. There is no clear evidence at this point the economy is in a "downfall." Interest rates are not currently lower than the most widely accepted measures of inflation (cash in a CD is easily getting over 5%). There are still plenty of other places to deploy capital.
In other words, there's a lot of investment money a
Re:Good ol' Supply and demand (Score:2)
Re:Good ol' Supply and demand (Score:1)
Re:Good ol' Supply and demand (Score:2)
Zero-risk interest rates in the U.S. are around 5% [bloomberg.com] and inflation is about 4% [inflationdata.com]. European rates are somewhat lower [ecb.int] and inflation is about 2%. Canadian rates are more in line with European than American, although out unemployment rate is more in line with the U.S. (i.e., low) and our public finances are unique (that is, in surplus federally and near balanced provincially.)
So most of us aren't quite in the cheap-money days of the late '90's, although the U.S. is coming close.
re: the road of self-employment, etc. (Score:2)
At least here in the midwest, that's what I've seen, time and time again. Someone with specific talents in an area of I.T. gets laid off from a good-paying job with a large-ish firm, can't find another job in a reasonable time-frame, so they finally decide to venture out on their own.
For example, before my current job, I worked for a couple years for a guy's start-up bu
Re:Good ol' Supply and demand (Score:2)
The answer to that one is simple. Buy commodities, e.g. gold, silver and oil before the government prints your money into worthlessness.
BTW, when the oil producers switch from demanding dollars to demanding gold or euros, you're going to see some serious inflation. They may well do this fairly soon as the value of their holdings of dollars is decreasing
Re:Good ol' Supply and demand (Score:2)
Then again, every time some oil exporting country threatened to take Euros for Oil it was immediately bombed to ruins, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
Little in common? (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's see...
Fly-by-night operations... check.
Crazed Investors... check.
Funny naming conventions... check.
Non-standard work-places... check.
Failure-to-profit... check.
Oh yeah, SO VERY LITTLE in common.
Well, let's see what they don't have in common...
Different clothes.
Different year.
Umm... Yeah, that's it.
Re:Little in common? (Score:2)
I like Kevin and all, but how come everytime I see him he looks like he needs a shower and a haircut? Oh and new clothes too.
Re:Little in common? (Score:3, Funny)
Dagnabit, don't call it that! Calling it that is what popped the first bubble! If we'd called it something better, I'd be making 90k a year doing nothing right now, like back in the good ol' days. Now please, let's get it straight, it's not a bubble, it's an ever-growing mountain of potential cash if people with shameful amounts of money will just keep paying for it for a little while longer.
Re:Little in common? (Score:2)
I see you didn't jump into DoD Contracting after the IT/Telecom bubble burst.
Re:Little in common? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Little in common? (Score:1)
Re:Little in common? (Score:3, Funny)
A familiar revenue model (Score:2)
90-95% of Web surfers do nothing. They don't create content. They don't participate. The "Social Web" is millions of people waiting for something to happen and a small number of neurotics who think what they say is important or get a weird kick out the whole circus.
In the meantime, you throw advertizing at the aimless creatures and place your bets.
It's the hypnosis revenue model of television and radio. People have not changed. If this guy's ~really~ sma
Re:A familiar revenue model (Score:2)
Besides, there is non-entertainment side to W2.0, thinks Google Maps. Say, it is not Web2.0.
Re:Little in common? (Score:1)
Principal's who think their shit doesn't stink... Check.
Claims that "This time, it's different"... Check.
Is their anyway we can invest in these idiots' inevitable collapse? 'Cause we KNOW it's coming.
Re:Little in common? (Score:2)
Attention Kevin (Score:5, Funny)
1992 called. They want their inflated ego back
So three anecdotes make a trend? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, so there are a number of "Web 2.0" entrepreneurs who aren't in it soley for the money. (Or equally likely, IMO, some entrepreneurs are now standing pat in the hopes of a bigger payday later... but that's another issue).
So what? Back in the "Web 1.0" days there were also a good number of folks who didn't immediately go off the deep end when VC money became available. I was personally involved with two startups just before the dotbomb burst, and both had offers that they turned down because they wanted to keep control. This is nothing new, despite the ridiculous article. (Another hint to BW: don't try for "hip"--you just come off as lame)
And the folks in the story are still definitely a minority, as far as I can tell. There are still lots of folks out there who are trying the old scam of trying to get VCs to give them money based on a business plan and a Flash demo. It's just that now instead of "we'll give it away at a loss, but make it up on volume" there's the "we'll create a 'community' and sell advertising" theme.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Re:So three anecdotes make a trend? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:So three anecdotes make a trend? (Score:2)
But this is completely different. The first model is insanely stupid--the sort of thing that only bubblistas would invest in (and they did). The second is not only a potentially viable business model, it
Web 2.0 (Score:4, Funny)
There really should be some sort of service that lets you order someone to smack those people upside the head, preferably with a nice AJAX interface.
Re:Web 2.0 (Score:2)
Re:Web 2.0 (Score:1)
Re:Web 2.0 (Score:1)
Invent useless terms (Score:2)
Talk about form over substance.
I can see it now - "businessweek interview iWebby founder and lead VC. There no money - yet, but like web 2.0 and web 3.0 and web 4.0, the profound impact of iWebby and the soon to be termed iWebby 2.0 will change everything, and give bir
Re:Invent useless terms (Score:1)
As long as our Total Enterprise WebFrontispiece leverages Blue-skyRuby Outside THE Rails in order to grow its self-contentizing stakeholder model I don't care about the details. Send for the code monkeys!
The More Things Change... (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, in all fairness here's where I stand on Digg vs. Slashdot:
-Sort through the massive amount of crap on Digg for the latest news bits that might be worthwhile. On Digg it'a all about quantity, not quality. Or to put it another way, "How do we do it? VOLUME"!!!
-Hit Slashdot and find that some of the stories you found interesting on Digg are featured here and there is a better quality of discussion (amazingly) than there is on Digg. So this is where you get social. Digg is just an unsorted pile of crap.
-Yeah, I'm aware that the stories are "voted" to the front page by the readers. That's fine as long as your readers aren't idiots. The more popular Digg gets, the more idiots they collect. Therefore the quality of the front page represents what the idiots want to see. Not what actual, thinking readers are interested in.
Now, what I can also thank Digg for is the effect it's had on Slashdot. Not so much internally, but externally. I don't give a rat's ass if Taco and crew are scrambling to try and compete with Digg. That's not the effect I'm talking about. I'm talking about the somewhat homeopathic effect they've had on Slashdot. By becoming more popular, they've lured away most of the idiots. I've noticed that the level of discussion on Slashdot has improved since Digg 3.0 was unleashed. I think that a lot of the morons who annoyed the piss out of me after Slashdot became popular (I've been here since 1997 when I used to be CaptEno) couldn't resist that suction of stupid that Digg presented. The only negative effect I've seen is much slower story submission. Whereas the stories used to tick by quickly, now we're lucky if we see five new stories in a day.
Re:The More Things Change... (Score:2)
Spot on. You can't read digg comments, you will tear out your hair and cry to your momma.
I do hit them on occasion to see what stories they have listed since they do have quantitiy.
Now, if we only had a slashbox thingie for digg on slashdot, I would never have to go there...
Re:The More Things Change... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The More Things Change... (Score:2)
Re:The More Things Change... (Score:2)
Digg is for those less than 18 years
Slashdot is for those older than 18, and the occasional troll...
Re:The More Things Change... (Score:2)
1. You can only reply to comments of depth 1 -- nothing below that. Thus, if you post some insanely stupid comment in response to someone else, no one can directly respond to you. They have to post lower down on the page with something like, "@dipshitdigger: Here is why you are wrong: [yadda yadda]," or wha
Re:The More Things Change... (Score:2)
hmm, Slashdot's been popular for a while. are you saying Slashdot is full of ...?
The more popular any website gets, the more visitors (of any kind) they collect. popularity will drive as many idiots as actual,thinking readers. maintaining the quality of content is a different matter - if digg discussions continue to be as lame as they are now, then the contributions of thinking readers will dwindle. but that is also the simple beauty about digg
Re:The More Things Change... (Score:2)
What do you guys do on your site? (Score:2)
BENDER: So it's sorta social...demented and sad, but social. Right?
Re:The More Things Change... (Score:2)
Re:The More Things Change... (Score:2)
Re:The More Things Change... (Score:2)
It's called Cyberpunk (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's called Cyberpunk (Score:1)
Re:It's called Cyberpunk (Score:1)
Re:It's called Cyberpunk (Score:2)
Perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Perspective (Score:2)
Ironically, the story from the bet-this-story-won't-get-dugg dept made it right onto the front page of Digg. :-)
AOL is Old Media? (Score:1)
On July 18, AOL tried to lure Digg's top 50 contributors with $1,000 a month to switch to its site, which led Rose to rant on his weekly podcast that Calcanis and AOL were trying to "squash Digg." The corporate giant's failure to gain inroads so far shows that simply copying Digg won't work. It also spells out why Old Media types are so afraid of being eaten alive by the creative destruction these young new players are delivering. The barriers to entry are now so low that all it takes is a laptop
Re:AOL is Old Media? (Score:2)
Late? He won't even be born for another 850 years or so.
Re:AOL is Old Media? (Score:1)
Ugh. "Brat pack?" (Score:2)
Sheer curiosity...? (Score:1)
Re:Sheer curiosity...? (Score:2)
Kevin Pereira was his co-host and still hosts the show.
http://www.g4tv.com/attackoftheshow/features/5366 3 /AOTS_hosts_Kevin_Pereira_and_Olivia_Munn.html [g4tv.com]
You can still catch Kevin Rose on the web on a podcast called Systm.
http://www.revision3.com/systm [revision3.com]
Business Week (Score:1)
Someone tell me what digg has... (Score:1)
how successfull is digg? (Score:2)
At least one fact wrong (Score:2)
With such a simple fact wrong, I would not be suprised if more of it was incorrect.
Re:At least one fact wrong (Score:2)
All chasing the same ad revenue (Score:2)
All these ad-supported services are chasing the same pool of advertising spending. In that sense, they're competitors of Google. Now AOL has gone advertising-supported, so they're going after the same revenue.
The result is probably going to be that online advertising rates go through the floor, like banner ads did. We'll also see some sites get desperate and try annoying ads, popups, popunders, interstitials, and adware. Total spending on advertising is not going to increase; it has to stay a fractio
Re:In all honesty ... (Score:2)
Admit it, you would be trolling Digg if.... (Score:1)
Re:Wow, Kevin Rose made it??? (Score:1)
Re:Wow, Kevin Rose made it??? (Score:1)
Re:Wow, Kevin Rose made it??? (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, he sure is lame.