Jeff’s views on what will happen with the current Web 2.0 start-ups is interesting:

A small number of companies will be acquired early before they reach scale or revenues (as opposed to the current fantasy that GEMAYANI will acquire them by the dozen). Another small number will reach profitability and will have their options open, and the majority will either hit the wall or operate small enough that their founders will be able to keep them running alongside their regular day job.

I personally think that there will be a power law kind of situation. Where the A list gets bought up, the B list manage quite fine on their own thank you very much and the C list keep running as a side job.

VC's and Web 2.0

Important new release!

Announcing Web 2.0.1

We would like to alert you that there's been a patch release to Web 2.0 to address some minor bugs and address valuable new features. Although this is a minor upgrade, and should not effect your use of Web 2.0, please note the following changes.

* Bug 84318192-b: We've addressed a problem with the automatic product revision system that caused products to be stuck at "beta" level. Please note that many of these projects are actually Version 1.0 (with several at Version 2.0).

* Bug 84399290.3: We've also noticed that the term "version" when applied to a web based application is kind of dumb. It's not like you can uninstall "News" and use a previous version anyway.

* Bug 84410000: The use of weird names for products is not a bug, it's a feature.

* Bug 84435923: There have been an inordinate number of map based applications. This was due to a programming creativity glitch. Shock collars have been distributed.

* Bug 85211006: Due to various copyright issues and a new sponsorship plan, the use of Javascript and DHTML to modify pages shall be called "DR-BRONNERS"

* Bug 85732641: We thought about introducing an RSS feed of the current time, but decided it was dumb. So we did it anyway. XML

* Bug 86753090: We were thinking about allowing page generators to specify various tags associated with the content they generate. Then we realized those were covered by "meta:keywords", overrun by spammers and now nobody uses them. So we changed the name, they're now called "Generator Tags". We understand several startups announced this morning are basing their business model off of them.
Bug 93242381: ... PROFIT! (Yeah, still working on that one.)

We urge all current Web 2.0 users to upgrade to Web 2.0.1 as soon as possible.

jr conlin’s ink stained banana � Announcing Web 2.0.1

There are some aspects of contemporary web (web2.0?) design which are duplicated across many sites, such as:

TrendyWEB | The Trendiest Web2.0 Page on the Net!

Vonage, the New Jersey-based VoIP services provider filed documents with the Securities & Exchange Commission yesterday, hoping to raise a whopping $250 million in a widely anticipated initial public offering. The marquee group of investment bankers are hoping that investors would over look the obvious structural problems in Vonage’s financial model, and buy the stock in the company. Business Week has a rather in-depth look at the chances of the public offering. The Stalwart does a stellar job as well.

$213.77 per customer in marketing? It's cause they're using old media television saturation -- does that work? I would think "6 free months of service for every new customer" would work at least as well, and cost less (especially because churn goes down after 6 months of usage).

Om Malik on Broadband : » Vonage Churn Investor Heartburn

DeAACS.com
Estimated release: winter 2006/2007

DeAACS

Vinnie linked to me after I wrote some negative comments about Blogger yesterday (others agreed), and pointed to an interview where Marissa Mayer talks about how Google builds products around constraints. Fast company also used the theme back in November.

What a crock.

Google believes in constraints the same way vice president Cheney is a sniper.

This is another good rant by a very intelligent independent tech analyst. The premise is that constraint-based design is critical, and Google doesn't follow it. From there, we get Not Invented Here, flailing design, etc. The first Google page was constraint-based and brilliant. Since then, it is mostly just 'throw enough smart people at every large problem must produce some great results, right?'

This is the technology version of the business model problems I've been recently meme'ing about. And like that, these are very subtle and hard to argue when they face a track record of success: Google Maps is better than MapQuest; Gmail is becoming the default mail reader among the tech-sophisticates; Google News is influential (although I've switched away).

Orkut was a nice demo but fell flat. Google Base hasn't taken off. Google Video Store isn't so hot. But those three examples took effort to remember, and there is still some cognitive dissonance (Google doesn't always win? What?) When they lose that dissonance, when their introduction of a product is met with skepticism, when they have to market an offering to get traction... that's an important step back.

And it is happening already. Google Desktop should be so good, Dell should be willing to paying for it (like they do Windows, and will with Vista which will make GD harder to adopt). I shouldn't hesitate to download Google Package (haven't even really thought of it). I should have real motivation to use Google Earth more than once.

Because if Google has to pay Dell $1B to bundle its software, and $1B to AOL to keep it on its side, then a sizeable warchest looks less intimidating. And its talent pool is going to feel the Web 2.0 lure when it is clear they're no longer all going to be multimillionaires.

James Governor's MonkChips: Why Google is not about constraint-based design, 37Signals is, Europe too

There are at least four such "super-bases" in Iraq, none of which have anything to do with "withdrawal" from that country. Quite the contrary, these bases are being constructed as little American islands of eternal order in an anarchic sea. Whatever top administration officials and military commanders say -- and they always deny that we seek "permanent" bases in Iraq -– facts-on-the-ground speak with another voice entirely. These bases practically scream "permanency."

Unfortunately, there's a problem here. American reporters adhere to a simple rule: The words "permanent," "bases," and "Iraq" should never be placed in the same sentence, not even in the same paragraph; in fact, not even in the same news report. While a LexisNexis search of the last 90 days of press coverage of Iraq produced a number of examples of the use of those three words in the British press, the only U.S. examples that could be found occurred when 80% of Iraqis (obviously somewhat unhinged by their difficult lives) insisted in a poll that the United States might indeed desire to establish bases and remain permanently in their country; or when "no" or "not" was added to the mix via any American official denial.

TomDispatch - Tomgram: A Permanent Basis for Withdrawal?

They already have their own designer clothes, health insurance and therapists. Now more and more American pets are enjoying their own birthday parties.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmv/5815543/

Oddly Enough News Article | Reuters.com

I've finally decided to weigh in on the 'VC Disruption' thread, in part because one of my earlier posts seems to be heavily cited in the discussion. A couple of caveats before I proceed.

It is an interesting thread, and I am interested in to where it goes. It's interesting -- certainly my Web 2.0 take-away is that it really doesn't make as much sense to prepare a business for venture capital so much as come up with an aggressive rampout and marketting strategy. Most of the costs can stay pretty low -- right, Decius?

Due Diligence: VC Disruption? Part One.

In case you missed it, proposed IRS Regulation 409A, dealing with deferred compensation, is making everyone in the startup community run around like chickens with their heads cut off. It’s a broad regulation, but in a nutshell, for private companies it redefines the way companies determine fair market value in granting stock options.

Wow. This was something I missed by ignoring the usual "how to start a company" talks in 2005. Great resource here for something that makes the super-small budget startup... much more expensive for the company and/or the option-receiving employees.

Feld Thoughts