What the hell? Were you too lazy to write a blog post consisting of more than two links? Were you Twittering with your thumbs and writing this post with your toes? That would be impressive.
Mao: sorry, it’s a Twitter world now. Deal.
I just love the headline: “The Web 2.0 World is Skunk Drunk on Its Own Kool-Aid”
It seems to mix up the ‘Drink the Kool-Aid’ meme with the idea of dogfooding to come up with something that just doesn’t make sense. How do you get ‘skunk-drunk’ on poison?
Also, if you’re going to actually put the company’s logo/mascot on your article, you’d think you might research it for 3 mins and discover that it seems more likely to have been Flavor-Aid (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones#Jonestown_and_mass_murder-suicide).
Love it or hate it, the term Web 2.0 is here until something supersedes it. I’m not saying that the poo-pooers should embrace it; I use the term like a bookmark that symbolizes the current web trend. Like the pet rock, latest stock tip, or paparazzi drowning the celebrity wreck of the month, there’s always going to be a flood of interest until something shifts the focus. IRT what Rubel said, I don’t think every startup is out to be the next Google acquisition, and I think it’s pretty idiotic to assume Google’s acquisition of YouTube is representative of some perceived valueless capitalist trend. Even though there is some content redundancy online, I truly believe that the current entrepreneurial spirit is intended to add value, i.e. “I think we can do it better.” In the case of Google and YouTube, I think the capital Google provided helped drive YouTube, otherwise it would’ve been crushed by legal recourse from organizations like the MPAA. What would Rubel’s opinion be then? I’m sure like-minded people would be vilifying the MPAA and vocalizing how the backing of an industry giant would’ve saved YouTube. A common trait that accompanies anything that makes it easier for many people to do something is glut. I think that social-networking (i.e. word of mouth) helps, but I believe the company that provides a service that gives most people what they want will succeed (i.e. the freedom to give and take what they want), whether it’s by enabling filter usage, registration requirements, or whatever … not the content’s social value. Social-networking and social value are terms that I think are necessary when planning a site but overused when it comes to a site’s success.
But it was mean not to link directly. Doesn’t that cut the link juice to those blogs?
I’m sure you didn’t mean anything by it.
Hype sucks no matter what it represents. The Internet is cool, but the way people get worked up about stupid little things like twitter is beyond me. It’s just another way to do something that you could already do.
Companies and services that have meteoric rises have ugly falls and failures.
I’m willing to to be within 5 years there will be a Google killer. All of these little things like twitter and jaiku will fall by the wayside for the next “hot” commodity that will itself last a couple of years and burn out, too.
All of this is likely progress, although sometimes I think we are falling backwards a couple of steps.
By now we should have had Star Trek food synthesizers, warp drives, communicators that don’t rely on providers, quantum computing, and a host of other things. When we have these things, I will be impressed. Until then, it’s all been done before.