Slashdot Mirror


F'd Companies

Alex Moskalyuk writes "Philip J. Kaplan's F'd Companies is a compilation of famous and not so well-publicized dot-com flameouts. Most of the companies that are described in the book do not exist today, for some others the domain names are being used for similar businesses, but the original management and business plans are gone. Even though F'd Companies presents several chapters in the table of contents, it's better viewed just as compilation of dot-com mishaps, with about one or two pages dedicated to each company." Read on for more Schadenfreude. F'd Companies author Philip J. Kaplan pages 224 publisher Simon & Schuster rating 8/10 reviewer Alex Moskalyuk ISBN 0743228626 summary Spectacular dot-com flameouts

Everyone who's visited the author's Web site at least once has probably noticed Kaplan's style of writing -- raunchy humor abundantly supplemented with free use of four-letter words, which is then mingled with frequent references to the author's male organ and Internet pr0n industry. Not that the book loses its charm because of it -- F'd Companies would probably make a poor choice for a kid's present, but after getting used to Kaplan's style of writing the obscenities and euphemisms add hilarity to otherwise dry management text. Here's Kaplan's contemplation on the value of domain name Wapit.com (now defunct):

The company had a cool name though. I love to wapit in the morning when I first wake up with my stiffy, wapit in the stall of the men's bathroom at lunchtime, and wapit before I go to sleep.

The book is full of references to defunct companies, and reader can easily skip the chapters if some companies sound more interesting than others. The chapter names are well-chosen and represent the author's style well. "$100 SHOPPING SPREE IF YOU READ THIS CHAPTER" talks about the numerous get-paid-for-browsing-the-Internet companies, the industry that was pioneered by AllAdvantage.com and supported later by numerous copycats. "Portals to nowhere" talks about such huge money-burners as Go.com and QuePasa.com. The chapter for 'miscellaneous' companies that did not fit any other chapter is titled "I've no fucking clue."

If you look for objective analysis, or used to work for some of the companies mentioned in the book, do not buy it if you consider yourself a sensitive person. Kaplan disparaging remarks are what makes this book a worthy read. Here are some of the selected quotes regarding bankrupt dot-coms.

IHarvest.com: "I don't think I've ever seen a more useless company than iHarvest.com. Actually, I am sure of it. Such a waste."

CalendarCentral.com: "Why would an application service provider like CalendarCentral.com, a site that provides shared, online calendars for group scheduling, go out of business? Microsoft Outlook/Exchange you say? [description of business model that never worked follows] Another one assimilated by the Borg... and Microsoft probably didn't even notice."

OnlineChoice.com: "And this one cost investors around $20 million and employed seventy people. Seventy people. This business, this WEBSITE, could have been run by a SCRIPT. Zero employees. Okay, MAYBE a couple of people to broker deals with suppliers."

SwapIt.com: "So let me get this straight: 1) I send them a CD. 2) They give me useless "SwapIt Bucks." 3) They go out of business. 4) I get nothing. Great, sign me up! [...] I believe this is the only dotcom that actually had people SENDING them product and they STILL couldn't stay in business."

Being a Web developer, Kaplan just goes into fits when talking about the high-cost Web site development. He admits that some sites might be more demanding than others, but any 6- or 7- digit number and above, in his opinion, is just plain ridiculous. Talking about Rx.com, Kaplan is blunt: "This company had $350 million to build a fucking website and market it a little. I mean, if they spent $1 million a year, they could have been around for hundred of years without a single sale." In a two-page rant about high-cost developer MarchFirst.com, Kaplan admits: "Anyway, building websites is relatively easy. That's not to say that everyone can do it, nor that anyone would be interested in learning how. [...] Generally, it's not brain surgery (which I'm assuming is kinda tricky). [...] I'm an idiot and even I was able to build a successful small business building websites. Thing is, we didn't charge millions to build a five-minute CGI email form. That's why we're still around." (Kaplan's agency is PK Interactive.)

By now you should get a feel of the book. It's easy to read, and is sometimes just hilarious, as Philip Kaplan has good-quality sarcasm almost in every sentence. The book would be of interest to tech types, especially those who had been involved in dot-com craze. For serious business types it provides valuable lessons on how not to run a new business. Kaplan's book is a valuable addition to the history of the Internet economy.

You can purchase F'd Companies from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

205 comments

  1. first on-topic post by Yellow+Brick+Choad · · Score: 1, Interesting

    this book is not worth $16

    1. Re:first on-topic post by uncoveror · · Score: 1

      If F'd Company has taught us anything, It has taught us that greed for greed's own sake is not a business model. Profit is the result of providing a valuable product or service that the public wants at a fair price. If profit is the only goal, your business will fail. While F'd Company may not necessarily be a chronicle of capitalism's failure as an economic theory, it is a chronicle of capitalism's falsehood as a religion. The seven deadly sins do not become the seven cardinal virtues just because you are in business. The people at the top all the failed dot coms, Enron, Worldcom, et al thought they do. It is just to bad the millions who used to work for them got F'd, and most of the CEOs, CFOs, and other big bosses still got rich.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  2. Basically... by mschoolbus · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Its seems that most online companies are F'd.... I could have written this book in 1 paragraph =P

    1. Re:Basically... by jmertic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The whole era taught us (again), that there truely is no thing as a free lunch. A successful internet company actually has to have a non-internet side of it to be successful, with some exceptions ( namely Ebay, Yahoo, Google to name a few ). You can't just start a internet business in your basement and expect the money to come rolling in.

      You also have to be able to sell something online that someone would likely buy thru that medium. For example, selling cars and furniture online doesn't work as well as going to the car dealership or the furniture store; it's just not something that we can be comfortable with. And back then, everyone tried to find a way to sell everything possible online; some found success ( ex. books/videos/CDs with Amazon, CDnow, etc ) and some realized it just couldn't be done easily or at all.

      This can be extending to advertisement space ( ie banner ads, popups ). This works well outside of the internet ( TV/radio ads, billboards ), but it's value was overrated during the .com era. Paying a website to refer someone to some other website was predicated on the idea of that person actually buying something there, which never really panned out as they hoped (ie Web Site Visitor != Web Site Customer). Then to make things worse, a company solely built around income from such referrals (AllAdvantage.com) was just a ticking timebomb, especially when people figured out the cheats ( I know I did )

      Today companies with a large online presence typically have a similarly sized complimenting offline presence. For example, you can go to an Apple store or dealer and buy and iBook, or goto the Apple Online Store and buy one. It seems to be the best bet.

    2. Re:Basically... by murr · · Score: 1

      And back then, everyone tried to find a way to sell everything possible online; some found success ( ex. books/videos/CDs with Amazon, CDnow, etc )

      Actually, make that just Amazon (They just took over CDnow). Amazon seems to be pretty much the only pure internet retailer that is profitable, and at their current pace, it's going to take them decades to recoup their initial losses.

    3. Re:Basically... by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Are they really making a profit now, or are they still using creative book-keeping? (heh) Not that I'd buy anything from spamazon.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:Basically... by Anitra · · Score: 1

      Here is a company which started in the founder's basement and solicited donations from its users. After a year or two of doing that, the volunteers who ran the organization realized it could actually be profitable.. and it is! Great to be making money on a purely internet service after the dot-com bust. (Disclaimer: I've been both a volunteer and a paid employee in the past - but I'm currently concentrating on finishing my degree.)

      --

      Have you read the Moderation Guidelines Addendum?
  3. worthwhile? by egoff · · Score: 1

    Sounds like the /. version of "America's dumbest criminals" Can you really get any insight from one or two pages for each company?

    1. Re:worthwhile? by siskbc · · Score: 1

      I do believe that was the intent! This was not, I imagine, intended as a textbook to be used in a marketing class - seems like the goal was the general amusement of those of us who *DIDN'T* lose a pile of cash on their IPO's. Or, maybe if you did, but have a dark sense of humor.

      --

      -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

    2. Re:worthwhile? by Pike65 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "This company had $350 million to build a fucking website and market it a little. I mean, if they spent $1 million a year, they could have been around for hundred of years without a single sale."

      I'm surprised that manage to make them as long as two pages with bogosity like that. I mean, I'd have made them a decent site for $100 million . . .

      --
      "If being a geek means being passionate about something, then I pity those who aren't geeks." - Pike65
    3. Re:worthwhile? by Lt+Razak · · Score: 1
      This might be a fun way for those 20,000 employees to remember their good-ol-days back in the dot-com business before they watched their stock options plummet to 2 cents a share.

      However, it's hard not to think of this book as being as worthless an investment as the companies that it covers.

  4. What chapter.. by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    What chapter does VA Software appear in?

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:What chapter.. by pmc · · Score: 5, Funny

      Chapter 11

    2. Re:What chapter.. by mustangsal66 · · Score: 1

      The book actually only has 2 chapters...
      7 and 11

      --
      Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed "nucular" accelerator on his back.
      Sig changed for readability by G.W.
    3. Re:What chapter.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i am too gay to resist mentioning that there is also a chapter 13

      -- androgenically bankrupt

    4. Re:What chapter.. by buckthorn · · Score: 1

      FWIW, the "Me fail English? That's unpossible!" quote was by Ralph Wiggum, not Homer S.

  5. Where's the by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Obligitory VA Linux comment?

    Trolls, I'm ashamed!

    --
    You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
  6. So how is it so long by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Funny

    I mean there's only so far you can pad out the "do X; ???; Profit" troll.

    1. Re:So how is it so long by Fjord · · Score: 1

      1. Write a book about "1. do X; 2. ???; 3. Profit"
      2. ??? ...

      --
      -no broken link
    2. Re:So how is it so long by whipping_post · · Score: 1

      Small pages, big font, just like a book report back in 5th grade. Seriously!

    3. Re:So how is it so long by DataSquid · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the funny lies within the fact that these companies didn't see that as the problem. And there's a whole book full of them! It's still amazing that all these companies existed, and never noticed that they were part of the troll. This truly is a piece of history.

      --

      DataSquid.net, a little about me.
    4. Re:So how is it so long by arb · · Score: 0

      3. Profit?

    5. Re:So how is it so long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is so funny!

      I bet no-one thought of that...

  7. Congrats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, way to spell Schadenfreude right! I would have definitely expected to see that spelled wrong on Slashdot. Nice going.

    1. Re:Congrats! by telstar · · Score: 5, Funny
      "Wow, way to spell Schadenfreude right! I would have definitely expected to see that spelled wrong on Slashdot. Nice going."
      • Don't worry ... they'll get it wrong when the story is reposted.
    2. Re:Congrats! by kisrael · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wow, way to spell Schadenfreude right!

      I think the guy takes that Schadenfreude thing way to far. Yes, a certain large percentage of dot coms were based on lousy ideas and served to fall by the wayside. But his website seems to take delight in reporting every business failure and layoff...even with good, old economy companies doing useful things and with decent ideas about keeping income greater than expenses.

      I don't think of myself as a delicate flower, or particuarly easily offended, but this guy is really annoying. Maybe I'm bitter, living through two layoffs in two years, but still, the amusement he expresses in these events that really screw with people's lives doesn't make a good regular reading diet.

      --
      SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
    3. Re:Congrats! by Bullet-Dodger · · Score: 1
      "Wow, way to spell Schadenfreude right! I would have definitely expected to see that spelled wrong on Slashdot. Nice going."

      Don't worry ... they'll get it wrong when the story is reposted.

      You'd enjoy that, wouldn't you?

  8. Just had to ask... by Skevin · · Score: 4, Funny

    What's in Chapter 11?

    Solomon

    --
    "Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
    1. Re:Just had to ask... by Ark42 · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Just had to ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mandrake?

    3. Re:Just had to ask... by ohlieoh · · Score: 1

      I've got the book right here, the chapter is entitled 'Give it away now' and covers companies that went too heavy on the loss leader approach.

      and yes, I know it was just supposed to be funny.

  9. Since when can you have 3 hyphens in a row ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting


    All the registars I've tried always say a hyphen must have a alphanumeric on both sides of it, this elimination domains which start or end with a hyphen, or have 2 or more in a row.

    1. Re:Since when can you have 3 hyphens in a row ?? by brain159 · · Score: 1

      Domain registered through netsol/Veri$ign as far as I can tell.

    2. Re:Since when can you have 3 hyphens in a row ?? by netringer · · Score: 1

      Since Network Solutions decided on no authority whatsover that they could charge for domain registrations. At that point the first fool with $50 got the name.

      The DNS RFC says that the domain name must start with an alpha. 3Com had to fight for 3com.com and once they got it they were all alone in having a name starting with a digit for years. Not no more.

      --
      Ever dream you could fly? Get up from the Flight Sim. I Fly
  10. Did they forget... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 3, Funny

    Did they think putting-in slashdotted companies?

  11. Not such a good book. by dietlein · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Boston Globe gave it a "D".

    Here's Salon's review: Looks like a "D" to me.

    1. Re:Not such a good book. by ivan256 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wow, so was Salon.com featured in the book? That guy sounded pissed off! It's too bad that he spent most of the review telling us all how he hates Phillip Kaplan, and only got around to making one actual criticism of the writing. He claims he's in the target audience, but I doubt that the target audience consists of the idiots the book is about. I would think it's more aimed at all the people who thought they had missed out on the whole dot-com thing, and are now getting to point and laugh at all their buddies who bragged about being so wealthy for a few years.

      Somebody explain to me why salon is still around.

    2. Re:Not such a good book. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Somebody explain to me why salon is still around.


      Yeah, ya really gotta hate websites that actually create content.
    3. Re:Not such a good book. by MisterFancypants · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Salon review was satire, not a real review. If you don't believe me, just click the link again and look up at the top, where it is clearly labelled "Satire".

    4. Re:Not such a good book. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a parody of Pud's writing style.

    5. Re:Not such a good book. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somebody explain to me why salon is still around.

      Sure. They cover stories that never make it to our mainstream media. That alone is worth supporting, whether you read it or not.

    6. Re:Not such a good book. by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Somebody explain to me why salon is still around.

      Nice attitude you have.

      I sent them $50 for a 2-year Premium subscription sometime in 2001. Maybe that has a little to do with it. Even if they fold tomorrow, I still think I got my money's worth. I view them as a sort of charity.

      People have some weird attitudes about Salon. I've seen many people cheering for its destruction, who obviously disagree with it politically, but their major argument against it seems to be that Salon isn't profitable. It's one thing to say that about Salon as a corporate entity, but another as a source of news. Not all of us are stockholders- most of us are members of the general public. Salon is one of the few remaining holdouts in the otherwise corporatized U.S. media. And at least they're shelling out money to produce actual content- it's not like they're a worthless dotcom that was surprised to find that people didn't want to buy 20 lb bags of kitty litter online.

      Everyone knows Salon is a little pink, and it does print some stupid crap sometimes, but it does cover a lot of topics that otherwise don't receive any attention from the rest of the U.S. media- DMCA/copyright, the erosion of civil liberties, software patents, globalization, deCSS and freedom of speech, webcasting, etc. etc. A lot of their articles appear here on Slashdot. It will be sad when I have to go to foreign sites to get news about crap that's happening here. When the press is reduced to nothing but corporate whores, you'll be sorry.

      I do remember when this review came out back in April though, and naturally there was a quick reaction on fuckedcompany. I don't know if Salon was mentioned in the book itself- Pud didn't mention it so I don't think it was. If you dig through you'll find that the Salon review author (Damien Cave) is one of the posters in that thread.

    7. Re:Not such a good book. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh some of us are still just as wealthy as we ever were...there aren't free lunches long term but you can always jump on the hot craze band wagon and make a few bucks then when it goes belly up get on the next one. ;-)

    8. Re:Not such a good book. by Halloween+Jack · · Score: 1

      Oh, I get it--he was writing his review in the same style as a fuckedcompany.com entry! Roll over Jonathan Swift!

      Personally, I think that having to put "satire" above an essay or review is like having to put a sign that reads "food" on the apple pie that you baked for the county fair so that no one mistakes it for a cow flop. Is it even worth your time?

      --
      I looked into the abyss, and the abyss looked into me--and we both winked.
    9. Re:Not such a good book. by wdr1 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Makes you wonder if the review was posted simply because timothy wanted a chance to use 'Schadenfreude' again. ;-)

      -Bill

      --
      SlashSig Karma: Excellent (mostly affected by moderatio
  12. Kinda cheap... by Chocolate+Teapot · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...picking on companies who aren't around to sue his sorry ass. I think I might buy this.

    --
    Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
  13. You forgot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to mention all the lame references to his penis and porn... I think a 12yo helped him write it.

  14. old news by aa0606 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    isn't this book about a year old now?

    1. Re:old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately I missed your review a year ago. Perhaps you forgot to write it.

      You've contributed immensely to the topic. Thanks for wasting my time writing this.

  15. Not that I wish them ill.... by kpooley · · Score: 1

    but wouldn't it be nice if we didn't need f'd Co? But then who would write the postmortem of f'd Co when they hit the wall and flamed out?

  16. Re:[Stephen * | * King], $PROFESSION dead at $AGE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Could you please make a GUI form for this?

    Preferrably in VB.

    thx!

  17. Insights? by PhysicsGenius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This would probably be a fun read, but I can't imagine "serious business types" gaining any insights. Real business people already know you have to have a good plan and a product to make money. Very few of these failed dotcoms had either one and almost none of them were run by anybody with any business sense. Most of them were a couple of college dropouts with a meager knowledge of web site "design" *cough*slashdot*cough*.

    1. Re:Insights? by haa...jesus+christ · · Score: 1

      while you could argue this either way, i knew plenty of "serious business types" with multiple successful ventures over decades, who consequently plowed tens of millions (directly, not through funds) into startups and consequently losts tens of millions + however much more they were convinced to throw in.

      the slashdot comment is appropriate, though. :)

    2. Re:Insights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Slashdot? Slashdot's design is fine, judging by the ridiculously high user IDs we see, not to mention the sheer capacity of its users to bring any site in existance to its knees.

      If Slashdot's design was so horrible, people wouldn't use it. Maybe in the early days when there was no equivalent, people were stuck here.. The fact remains, however, that no one worries about the 'kuro5hin effect'.

      As for business sense.. CmdrTaco, Hemos and everyone else's hobby is being effectively sponsored by a largely visible name in the open source world. Sure, the Slashdot crew isn't in it for profit - but ending up with the deal they have isn't too shabby. Would that actual business people had the sense they did. ;)

    3. Re:Insights? by ThinWhiteDuke · · Score: 1

      WebVan anyone?
      They burnt through $1 billion (yes, that is 1,000 millions) and were headed by Accenture's former CEO... Talk about "serious business types"...

      --

      It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
    4. Re:Insights? by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Insights? No. However, the book probably preserves the zeitgeist of the bubble for more than a few Gen-Xers. It's good to be reminded of our past follies every so often.

    5. Re:Insights? by iSwitched · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually I have to disagree - "business types" are exactly who need to read this, lest they not learn from their mistakes.


      During my time with failed "dot-com X" during 1999 - 2002, we constantly tracked the downfalls of our 'competitors' via f'd company. Almost every one was highly funded and run by "business types". In fact, during the whole time I only met two college-kid basement startup types, and they had sold to MS and retired as millionaires.


      That being said, I'm pretty sure the business types have learned a little since then, so the material in this book may be a bit dated. We won't see boom-times like the late-90's again - man what an era!

      --
      "That naive cube! How long must I suffer this!" --Sheldon J. Plankton
    6. Re:Insights? by BigBadBri · · Score: 1
      Accenture?
      That'd be the artists formerly known as Andersen Consulting?

      Serious business types?
      More like overpaid history graduates with no experience or skills being paid to fsck up industry...

      Not surprised their former CEO managed to burn a billion - wonder how much of that went in consulting fees, marketing design / consultancy, etc.
      Most of that billion is probably sitting pretty in nice warm accounts in nice warm tax havens.

      Consultants are like leeches, only less useful and far more expensive.

      --
      oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
    7. Re:Insights? by Peyna · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Slashdot was successful; not necessarily because of their design, but because they were first.

      A lot of these dotcoms failed because they were just doing the same thing many people before them had already done.

      --
      What?
    8. Re:Insights? by ThinWhiteDuke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In my book, guys who manage to draw multi-billion revenues from big businesses on a recurring basis qualify as "serious business type".

      Now, you obviously consider that their services are not worth the money they're charging (and I'm not far from agreeing with you here). But that's a completely different point.

      --

      It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
    9. Re:Insights? by Jason+Earl · · Score: 1

      Those "business types" simply had a different set of goals than your management. It was pretty clear to anyone with even an inkling of economic sense that the .com bubble was nothing more than a replay of the Tulip Bulb Craze or the stock build-up that lead to the Great Depression. Heck, the vestiges of that bubble are even still with us today. Take a look at Microsoft's P/E or P/S ratio and then tell me where that kind of growth is going to come from. The market still clearly has pockets of "irrational exuberance."

      The professional managers of these companies almost certainly understood that the bubble would burst someday, but they also knew that before the bubble popped there would be plenty of time to make out like bandits. Their goal was simply to get as many stock options as they could and get out before the market crashed. Those that were successful in their goal made plenty of money. The VCs had an even easier time of it. All they had to do was hype up their tech companies and make it to a successful IPO.

      Yes, that's no way to run a business, but these folks weren't trying to run a business, they were trying to create enough of a shell of a business so that they could trick investors into bidding the stock price into the stratosphere. The VCs and their "professional managers" did just fine during the Internet boom (even the massive flameouts almost certainly made money), it's the chumps that bought into their "New Economy" spiel that paid the piper.

  18. The next big industry? by Badgerman · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Perhaps the next big industry is examining the .com bubble and the ocean of stupidity it rose in and teaching people not to do it again.

    I'm not sure if I'm being sarcastic here or not. More's the pity.

    I will buy the book, if only for a laugh.

    --
    "The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
    1. Re:The next big industry? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Or perhaps the next big industry is examining the .com bubble and the ocean of stupidity it rose in and is teaching people how to do it again.

      After all, you can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all the time, etc ...

      Sounds like one of those 3-step profit things that would actually work:

      1. Study dot-com bombs
      2. Transpose to up-and-coming industry
      3. Profit
      ... sorry, couldn't resist!
  19. Is VA linux listed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't be bothered to buy the book. :-p

  20. Here's A Spammer:: Lifeminders:: +3, Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For customer service
    please contact: customerservice@lifeminders.com

    For information on advertising with LifeMinders
    please contact: skorker@lifeminders.com
    For more information on advertising with LifeMinders click here

    For media inquiries
    please contact: mgranetz@lifeminders.com

    To unsubscribe from our service
    please contact: unsubscribe@lifeminders.com

    Cheers,
    W00t

    Get Your Peace On

  21. Too bad the author is no good by erf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've read it. It's amusing. However, Philip Kaplan's writing is flat out the worst part of the book.

    How many times can you read about a company and have the comments boil down to "they were dumb, they went out of business"? That's pretty much the outer limits of Kaplan's critical and analytic skills. The whole dot-com boom & bust phenomena (which so many /. posters bought into) is deserving of much more thought and research than went into this little one off, quick buck, mindless catalog of failures.

    The book gets real dull. Fortunately it's short. Kaplan, next time get a ghostwriter. Heck, how about an interview with megalomaniac ESR on his old essay "musings on sudden wealth" now that VA Linux has essentially gone tits up.

    1. Re:Too bad the author is no good by tomcode · · Score: 1

      It's not like he's a professional writer who spent years perfecting his craft.

      You know what would have made a better book? Copy and paste the best comments from his web sites, and string that together into a narrative on each company. Some stuff in there is way funny, and has the added bonus of being written by people who were involved in the disasters.

      --
      f u cn rd ths u cn gt a gd jb n cmptr prgmng
    2. Re:Too bad the author is no good by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "How many times can you read about a company and have the comments boil down to "they were dumb, they went out of business"? That's pretty much the outer limits of Kaplan's critical and analytic skills."

      Based on the excerpt provided on /., I doubt the guy really knew a whole lot what he was talking about. The Calender .COM example stuck with me. "It could have been done with a script". Not true. First you need people to build something on that level, then you need people to maintain the servers and fix problems that go wrong, then you need people working on making it better and better so that they don't lose to things like Exchange.

      I have no doubt that they were over-capitalized, that they could have done more with less. But let's be realistic, the guy claimed they could have done with a couple of people and a script. No. What probably really happened was a good chunk of the 70 people there were sales people making cold calls to get companies to try out their calender stuff. If they could get whole corps to sign on, they'd instantly have a big account with lots of people using it. Doesn't sound so mindless now does it?

      The reality is that if they'd gone with a more Google-esque approach, they'd probably have done better for themselves. But who knew that then? They had 20 mil to spend on it and they probably felt they needed to start big and quickly rake in the customers to maintain that.

      I definitely won't be buying that book. I don't think the guy's capable of interesting insight into a .BOM. I already read the list off the top 100 business failures in 2000, so why pay for the extended version?

    3. Re:Too bad the author is no good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to nitpick or anything, but OnlineChoice.com was the company that could have been run by a script instead of 70 people. Not CalendarCentral.

    4. Re:Too bad the author is no good by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Not to nitpick or anything, but OnlineChoice.com was the company that could have been run by a script instead of 70 people. Not CalendarCentral."

      Yep, you're right. It's too early for me. Heh. Thanks for being polite in pointing out my bone-headed mistake, it's appreciated.

    5. Re:Too bad the author is no good by Jimmy_Chi · · Score: 1

      i'm with you erf...i found it relatively interesting, but no better then a coffee table kinda book, and Kaplan's writing definitely was the worst part... ah well...

    6. Re:Too bad the author is no good by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Funny
      But let's be realistic, the guy claimed they could have done with a couple of people and a script. No.

      It's funny that we're able to discuss this point on a site that is essentially comprised of a couple of people and a script.

    7. Re:Too bad the author is no good by c0d3h4x0r · · Score: 1

      The whole dot-com boom & bust phenomena (which so many /. posters bought into) is deserving of much more thought and research...

      You really think so? Because frankly, the entire dot-com fallout was incredibly stupid and incredibly simple: if you don't make profits as you go along, you'll surely fail. I don't know what else can or should be said about it.

      --
      Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
    8. Re:Too bad the author is no good by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

      "It's funny that we're able to discuss this point on a site that is essentially comprised of a couple of people and a script."

      It's funny that we're using a site built by a couple of guys recreating a well established forum of communication that had alreaady been done a million times before?

    9. Re:Too bad the author is no good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the entire dot-com fallout was incredibly stupid and incredibly simple: if you don't make profits as you go along, you'll surely fail.

      But that is like saying to lose weight you have to use up more calories than you eat, and to win a basketball match you have to score more than your opponents and to be richer, you have to make more money.

      I think there are more intersting dynamic underneath that could be really interesting.

    10. Re:Too bad the author is no good by peterpi · · Score: 1
      "The whole dot-com boom & bust phenomena (which so many /. posters bought into) is deserving of much more thought and research"

      I'd disagree. From where I'm looking, a new technology came along, loads of people took a gamble and lost when it turned out that this new economy had exactly the same rules as the old one.

      It really is that simple. Sites selling stuff on the internet are no different to mail order companies, which have been a not-very-exciting industry since the telephone was invented.

    11. Re:Too bad the author is no good by Detritus · · Score: 1

      I know people who started businesses that didn't make a profit until the businesses were 5+ years old. They were willing to keep investing money as the business grew large enough to become profitable.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    12. Re:Too bad the author is no good by PSC · · Score: 1

      The Calender .COM example stuck with me. "It could have been done with a script". Not true.

      You got the CalendarCentral thingy and the OnlineChoice thingy mixed up. OnlineChoice was the one he claimed it could have been reduced to a script.

      --
      --- The light at the end of the tunnel is probably a burning truck.
  22. What is it going to take by Boss,+Pointy+Haired · · Score: 3, Insightful

    to restore confidence?

    As a start-up today, one of the biggest hurdles is getting a potential customer to take you seriously.

    Even if you are a sensible start-up, funded out of your own pocket - and even profitable on a small scale - you are tarred with the same brush as the multi-million dollar collapses of two years ago.

    I have to work very hard to convince a potential customer that i'll still be here in 12 months time, and it takes human intervention - i've not yet figured out how to do it through the website.

    1. Re:What is it going to take by rindeee · · Score: 5, Funny

      What you need my friend are two things. A 42" Plasma Display and an Aeron chair. Then and only then will you be taken seriously.

    2. Re:What is it going to take by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      As a start-up today, one of the biggest hurdles is getting a potential customer to take you seriously.

      If you have a sound business model and don't stress being a ".com", than no, potential customers will do what they can to save money with a reliable solution. Potential partners and investors, those are hard to find. At least ones you want.

      I have to work very hard to convince a potential customer that i'll still be here in 12 months time, and it takes human intervention - i've not yet figured out how to do it through the website.

      Provide a good site, with low overhead, and say that you are profitable. If they still think you're going belly up in 12 months, they're idiots and you probably don't want to do business with them anyway.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    3. Re:What is it going to take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you try to get through life never doing business with idiots, you will be forced to give up on the vast majority of your customers, and have a very difficult time making a living.

      Anybody who says they won't to do business with idiots will fail to avoid it, as they can't do business without themselves.

    4. Re:What is it going to take by Suicyco · · Score: 1

      Yeah but can you REALLY guarantee them that you will be around in 12 months? If you've been around for 10 years, they might have faith in that track record alone. Otherwise, it truly is a risk. Its a catch 22. The only way to prove you will be here in 12 months to have been there before. The only way to have been there before is to get customers to trust you will be there again, etc.

      It takes time and thats about all. I dont care how ingenious your business plan is, how incredible the product, those do not make longevity a given. Only longevity makes longevity a given.

    5. Re:What is it going to take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) 42" Plasma Display
      2) Aeron chair
      3) ????
      4) Profit!!!

  23. New addition for next revision: by mao+che+minh · · Score: 1

    New addition for next revision: Mandrake

    1. Re:New addition for next revision: by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 1

      From the website:

      Man
      Proving that giving away free software is not the road to profitability, French Linux distributor Mandrake filed for their equivalent of chapter 11.
      When: 1/17/2003
      Company: Mandrakesoft
      Severity: 100 - new hall of fame inductee!
      Points: 200
      35 comments in the Happy Fun Slander Corner!

      -a

  24. News of the Weird (Companies) by lawyamike · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yah, I can read the "News of the Weird" in the local alternative newspaper every couple of months or so, but the stories about stupid criminals, odd names, and the curious practices extant in certain foreign nations become tedious in the cumulative. So, ANOTHER person with the middle name "Ray" or "Wayne" is a murderer. That's funny-strange; it's not funny-haha.

    How long could one read about f'd companies? Are there really that many interesting archetypes? Don't the stories all blend together over time? Is it that successful companies are all the same, but unsuccessful companies are each f'd in their own individual ways?

    I've never worked in the Valley, and I am not a web designer, but it seems that the stories of failure would become pretty monotonous after a while. Three hundred-odd pages? Is there enough sarcasm or cuss-words to make the book interesting for that long?

    Heck, I'll buy the thing because I like the web site, but I get the feeling I'd save a couple of sawbucks if I just looked through the archives online.

    1. Re:News of the Weird (Companies) by sulli · · Score: 1

      It's funny as hell even if you do read the website. Seeing it in print is the key. Somehow seeing it in print emphasizes that THIS SHIT REALLY FUCKING HAPPENED, DUMBASS as it was.

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
    2. Re:News of the Weird (Companies) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, I'll buy the thing because I like the web site, but I get the feeling I'd save a couple of sawbucks if I just looked through the archives online.

      Third option: Library.

      Fourth (pseudo) option: Kazaa/IRC. Lots of book warez are available.

  25. What's in a name: JamCracker by Inflatable+Hippo · · Score: 5, Funny

    > Here's Kaplan's contemplation on the value of domain name Wapit.com (now defunct)...

    Some of these names are ludicrous arn't they? I remember reading lists of these names copyrighted (or whatever) by "branding" specialists just waiting for some fine 200 year old company to come along for a corporate comb-over.

    I specifically remember seeing the name "JamCracker" and thinking, good grief, the picture that paints in my head is just not to be shared!

    However, somone ponied up: Jamcracker, Inc. - Managed IT Solutions

    I'm sure they're lovely people but suddenly I'm not hungry...

    1. Re:What's in a name: JamCracker by Eccles · · Score: 2, Funny

      I specifically remember seeing the name "JamCracker" and thinking, good grief, the picture that paints in my head is just not to be shared!

      Wil Wheaton's website is hosted by logjamming.com. Apparently it's actually not about gay lumberjack porn...

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    2. Re:What's in a name: JamCracker by Fjord · · Score: 1

      And Here's the article you read it in. Bet you didn't realize you were admitting you read Salon :) Of course, so am I, but only for the articles.

      --
      -no broken link
  26. This is old by privacyt · · Score: 0, Redundant
    I don't mean to be a troll, but this story has whiskers. The book came out a year ago, fer pete's sake!

    Alright, bring on the "-1 troll" rating, you rascals!!!

  27. Does it speak about SES-Astra? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (n/t)

  28. Drew Carey quote by El_Smack · · Score: 4, Funny


    Welcome to Whose Line is it Anyway. Where everything is made up, and the points are so worthless they might as well end in "dot com".

    Just about fell off the couch when he said that.

    --


    There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
  29. Great, put in writing what we all want to forget by www.2cups.com · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Great, so in a few years when my daughter starts reading books that don't have puppies named spot in them she will come to me and ask me why I was stupid enough to move to the bay during the Dot Com boom. Colin

  30. uhhh by Hobophile · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I'm an idiot and even I was able to build a successful small business building websites. Thing is, we didn't charge millions to build a five-minute CGI email form. That's why we're still around.

    I'm sorry, but if companies are paying millions of dollars for a 5 minute CGI email script, and you decide your web design business is only going to charge a few hundred, then I have a hard time deciding who's the bigger fool here: the dotcom, or Philip "I'm an idiot" Kaplan.

    Charge what the market will bear and don't leave money on the table. Sales and Marketing 101.

    1. Re:uhhh by halftrack · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The dotcoms didn't sell websites for millions of dollars (I guess they wouldn't have gone under then,) but got millions of dollars from investors to create a website that were to sell/promote a service. The website was the business and the dotcoms went out because they blew millions on websites that weren't worth more than a few thousands, which is what businesses like the author charge.

      The author chose bad wording, but still ... the point's there.

      --
      Look a monkey!
    2. Re:uhhh by SirWhoopass · · Score: 1
      Charge what the market will bear and don't leave money on the table. Sales and Marketing 101.

      Of course. Because nobody ever remembers anything and a company's reputation isn't worth building. There's a difference between a healty profit and being a scam artist. Sure, there are a lot of quick bucks in being a scam artist, but you have to be ready to leave town quickly.

    3. Re:uhhh by mark_lybarger · · Score: 1

      uhhh. it sounds like you've already decided who you think is the bigger fool..

      a company, contractor, or potential employee is going to do a lot better getting the job by saying that "at my last client, we developed an effective web site for client X which provided them with X functionality" as oppose to "on my last project i used email objects within ASP pages to send an email to someone". when it's all said and done, and honest days work deserves an honest days pay. it seems like lots of folks who stuck to that ideal are still working for an honest days pay.

      Work hard, and give the customers a quality product. The customer is #1. Career Development 101

    4. Re:uhhh by Hobophile · · Score: 1
      Of course. Because nobody ever remembers anything and a company's reputation isn't worth building. There's a difference between a healty profit and being a scam artist. Sure, there are a lot of quick bucks in being a scam artist, but you have to be ready to leave town quickly.

      I think you are assuming there is some moral or ethical consideration here, where taking $1000 for a given site is fine but taking $1 million for it is unacceptable. And, depending on the situation, I might agree with you. But let's examine this particular situation more closely.

      Point 1: The web design firm's clients clearly have little experience with web technology, or their in-house development team is too busy. I think most people would agree that it's acceptable for educated professionals to market their services at a certain level, regardless of the amount of effort that is actually put into rendering that service.

      For example, if you hire a lawyer to review a contract, and he glances over it and finds a couple omissions and suggests a few additional clauses, you might expect to pay him a lot of money, even though he may not have spent much time on it. This is because the lawyer needed a lot of education to be able to do what he did in an hour, and lacking that education he probably could not have done it in any reasonable time frame.

      Further, if both parties have the expectation that this work will yield future rewards -- be it less risk of being sued or a greater chance of prevailing in a suit -- it's hard to make a case that the lawyer is 'exploiting' anyone. Certainly this expectation is present in our hypothetical case with the dotcom and the web design firm.

      Now, if the lawyer had trouble attracting clients, he might consider lowering his rate. But there's no reason he should start at the bottom just because some people might consider him overpriced. Traditionally, of course, lawyers charge by the hour, probably to avoid tiresome discussions on whether or not they earned their fee. However, you can also arrange for their services on a project or retainer basis, so it is not wholly dissimilar to the web design scenario.

      Point 2: Anything involving a million dollars presumably involves a contract, as well as an RFP process in which multiple service vendors bid an estimate for delivering the project. If the client followed this procedure and settled on the firm that charged $1 million, it's hard to point the finger at the web design firm and accuse them of exploiting anyone. It was the client's decision, and for all we know, the web design firm may simply have tossed off a ridiculously high bid because their plate was already full and they didn't need another client.

      Now, if all web design firms got together and decided to charge $1 million for each website any of them did, that would indeed be unethical and is very likely illegal. But we have not thus far asserted criminal behavior on the part of our web design firm; we are simply discussing whether or not it was a good business decision to charge a lot for relatively simple work.

      Also consider that if everyone else bids $1 million or thereabouts to deliver a project, and your firm places a bid for only $5000, that sends a very strong signal to the person making the decision: namely, that your firm does second-rate work. Why else would it be so cheap? Your three year old son might agree to design an e-commerce site for only $5, but that doesn't mean it's a savvy business decision to pick him.

      You can't expect the manager making the decision to know off-hand that the market is overvaluing the services he is soliciting. And once the market stops valuing your web design services so highly, why, simply lower the price. It's doubtful that your existing clients are going to be upset over a discount. And it's always a lot easier to keep old clients than to attract new ones, particularly if you've acquired a reputation as being substandard based on the prices you are quoting.

      Of course, you and I both know that the work in question was not likely to merit a million dollars' outlay, on technical considerations alone. But the fact is that something's value is simply what people are willing to pay for it. And if demand outstrips supply significantly, then the market value of something can greatly exceed its material worth.

    5. Re:uhhh by privacyt · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      I'm sorry, but if companies are paying millions of dollars for a 5 minute CGI email script, and you decide your web design business is only going to charge a few hundred, then I have a hard time deciding who's the bigger fool here: the dotcom, or Philip "I'm an idiot" Kaplan.

      Charge what the market will bear and don't leave money on the table. Sales and Marketing 101.

      How does a post like that get rated a 4? Serious question.

    6. Re:uhhh by sql*kitten · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Charge what the market will bear and don't leave money on the table. Sales and Marketing 101.

      You can only charge what the market will bear if you have your own cashflow under control. In 1998, a Fortune 100 website project was worth millions of dollars, because there were so few people who could build a high-end web site. The web agencies made one major mistake: they did not believe that websites would become commodities. So, they wrote their business plans assuming millions of dollars would come flowing in, that they could pick and choose clients, and that they didn't have to look for a new business model and get it in place before the bottom dropped out of the market.

      A smart company would be charging what the market will bear, but running the business as if the only money coming in was what the job was really worth, and saved the money in the cash reserve for the lean times.

  31. Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Here by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the damned 20 seconds before you post f'd me.

      Oh well, redundant by 10 seconds or so.

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    2. Re:Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry buddy, I've modded you up. Your karma is safe with me!

      -FF, ducking the mods

  32. Crap failures... by MosesJones · · Score: 4, Interesting


    What a dull book, these aren't interesting failures.

    Now WorldCom, Enron, Tyco etc etc.... those are interesting failures.

    We all used to think that .COMs were the best failures ever. But it just goes to show, not only are traditional business the best at succeeding.... they are also the best at failure.

    Can't .coms be the best at anything ?

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    1. Re:Crap failures... by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      Remember the eFront debacle a few years ago? Now THERE was a .com bombout to be proud of.

    2. Re:Crap failures... by Didion+Sprague · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Are you for real? WorldCom is an interesting failure? WorldCom and Enron are like every other failure. You have a bunch of dumn executives attempting to swindle the so-called "little" people. I'm not sure what's so interesting about that.

      What's interesting to me, at least, is a spectacular flameout like WebVan -- the company that was drilled hard into the ground by a dumb CEO who managed to get himself a multi-million dollar pension for twenty years. Company goes out of business, but the CEO -- a dumb old guy -- is making millions. Now, maybe some folks consider him a "smart" guy if he's making millions, but whatever.

      Still the dot-com stuff is fascinating -- how so many people can fuck up so much shit. It boggles the mind. I mean, it's like all the gold mines out west that went out of business. The gold was there -- or tiny bits of it, at least -- but they didn't have the money or the time or the smarts to be able to capitalize on it.

      WorldCom and Enron? Give me a break. That's old school, old-white-guy swindling. It's the same corporate greed that's gone on for years. What, Mrs. Kenneth Lay goes on television and talks to a TV interviewer and says they have "nothing" and that they're broke? Please. I got nothing, I'm broke, but I live like I have nothing and am broke. I don't wear Versace suits or have a wife with Ferragamo pumps. I don't have six houses scattered throughout the country and can't interest any interviewer from ABC to come and sit with me in my living room to talk about how broke I am.

      And why? Because my story about being broke is like every story about being broke. It's a tough world out there. Sob sob sob.

      It's like Alec Baldwin in 'Glengarry Glen Ross' come from Mitch and Murray downtown to get the sales force motivated. First place, a nice new Cadillac. Second place? Steak knives. Third place? You're fired.

      What does it take?

      It takes these -- and Alec lets a pair of brass balls hang low -- click, click, baby. Brass fucking balls. Not Versace silk, homes in Aspen, or Swiss watches that cost more than you make in a year.

      So give me a break about Enron and WoldCom being interesting. That's old school, with a bunch of dumb old guys in charge. More homes in Veil and Aspen. Big fucking deal. Kenneth Lay looks like Billy Bob Thornton with a haircut and is as slow and dimwitted as they come. Him and his Andrew "Fast Eddie" Fastow, the sleek looking accountant who probably tells all his secretaries that people often mistake him for Richard Gere.

      Turn on something like Startup.com -- the film about Kozmo.com and the annoying guy that ran it -- and that's interesting. It's fascinating to see how people took hold of the cultural hot buttons and then attempted to cultify it in order to make money and gain leverage.

      That's what the dot-com "boom" was -- one big cult, brainwashes free-of-charge, with a bunch of gullible young people grasping for straws in a world that was paying no attention to Bin Laden, loose nukes, and the silent, gathering anti-Americanism roiling up like a tsunami across the globe.

      Enron and WorldCom are just a bunch of old-school, bad-luck, corporate nightmares with the same old-school, bad-luck lessons to be learned. What's interesting in that? That people gave a fuck?

      Please.

    3. Re:Crap failures... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "WorldCom and Enron? Give me a break. That's old school, old-white-guy swindling. It's the same corporate greed that's gone on for years. What, Mrs. Kenneth Lay goes on television and talks to a TV interviewer and says they have "nothing" and that they're broke? Please. I got nothing, I'm broke, but I live like I have nothing and am broke. I don't wear Versace suits or have a wife with Ferragamo pumps. I don't have six houses scattered throughout the country and can't interest any interviewer from ABC to come and sit with me in my living room to talk about how broke I am."

      hey idiot - this may come as a surprise but dot com failure is no less "old school" than Enron failure. Such is the world of business. History repeats itself all of the time, .coms are just another iteration in cycle.

      you are clearly iniformed on many levels - let me point out one, so everyone can see how desperate you really are: " Turn on something like Startup.com -- the film about Kozmo.com and the annoying guy that ran it -- and that's interesting. It's fascinating to see how people took hold of the cultural hot buttons and then attempted to cultify it in order to make money and gain leverage."

      If you had actually seen the movie (I recommend it to anyone) you would have known that the company they followed was GovWorks, not Kozmo. The characters were very interesting, especially because they were real people who acted as if they had been written by a bad script writer. The faling of the company itself isn't really even highlighted by the movie (it's mentioned, but the focus is really on the relationship of the CEO and the CTO).

      In the end dot com failings are so many because they represented a glut in supply side of the economy - not because .coms are inviable. Take for instance the company above, it failed but it's main competitor is still in business and is relatively succesful - too many companies were trying to fill the same niche.

      Now tell me again why the above type of failure (dot com) is more interesting then embezzlement, offshore bank accounts, fraud, and collusion and conspiracy with people who are supposed to be auditing them?

  33. Dotcom anomaly by kahei · · Score: 1

    The weird thing is, although pretty well 100% of the companies with silly business models, excessive amounts of venture capital, and offices with space invaders machines in went bust, quite a lot of imature, talentless 'jounalist' types who'd be dunked in the toilet daily at a real newspaper are still making a living on the web, typing rude words, giggling, and making fun of the few things they can find even less imposing than themselves.

    I dunno why I mention this, I just suddenly thought of it for some reason :D

    --
    Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    1. Re:Dotcom anomaly by MissMyNewton · · Score: 2
      quite a lot of imature, talentless 'jounalist' types who'd be dunked in the toilet daily at a real newspaper are still making a living on the web

      That's because of plenty of material like this still around:

      Oh god, make it stop
      Flake.com
      Flake.com was a portal for breakfast cereal. I don't think you heard me. FLAKE.COM WAS A PORTAL FOR BREAKFAST CEREAL. I like breakfast cereal like the next guy, but sites like these make me so angry - not to mention VCs who support crap like this. "I'm discouraged, and I'm essentially broke" says the founder.
      When: Jun 15 2000 09:19PM
      Company: Flake.com
      Points: 200
      4 comment in the Happy Fun Slander Corner!

      --

      ---

      Information wants...you to shut your pie hole.

  34. More retro reviews? by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful
    What's going on at Slashdot? This book was published in April 2002, and it was a bit dated even then.

    For a while, Slashdot had a spate of duplicate stories, angering many readers who realized that the "editorial staff" wasn't reading their own output. Now there's this rash of outdated book reviews.

    When a company starts fucking up on the basics, they're usually doomed.

    1. Re:More retro reviews? by chromatic · · Score: 1

      They must have missed your review. When did you send it?

  35. Score of 4? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How do you think they got their funding? Not many college droupouts have access to the kinds of resources that VC firms offered a lot of these lads... So, I think you may be off the mark in how "serious" "serious" business types actually are.

  36. Is this a luck or a fuck? by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Funny
    Lucky Fucky!
    Pud gets his book mentioned on Slashdot with an Amazon referral link! That oughta bring in enough money to keep the FC trolls happy for another month!
    When: 1/21/2003
    Company: PK Interactive
    Severity: 20
    Points: 120
    (25 comments in the Happy Fun Slashdot Corner!)

    F'd Servers
    PK Interactive files Chapter 7. Last month, Pud got his book promoted on Slashdot's front page on the advice of his salesweasel who told told him bandwith was gonna be too cheap to meter. His salesnozzle didn't tell him when bandwidth would be too cheap to meter. Evidently, not yet. The bill arrived today.
    When: 2/21/2003
    Company: PK Interactive
    Severity: 100 - new hall of fame inductee!
    Points: 220
    (69 comments in the Happy Fun Slashdot Corner!)

  37. Funniest sentence in book. by PrimeNumber · · Score: 4, Funny

    FuckedCompany.com would smell like peas.

    Pud was describing a startup that marketed web based smells. (IE a peripheral device that heated small containers of oil) Real useful. Useful as a CueCat.

    A browser would see special smell tags and the appropriate oil(s) smells would be released.

    When the user hit say Amazon.com, they could smell musty books. Slashdot users could smell unwashed bodies and trolls. :)

    1. Re:Funniest sentence in book. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uggh, and people thought goatse.cx trolls were bad now...

  38. Good-quality sarcasm = penises and pr0n? by aCheshireCat · · Score: 4, Insightful


    I always trust a reviewer who equivocates four-letter words, penises, and pr0n with quality sarcasm because he provably still wapits to the lingerie section of the Sears catalog.

    Anyhow, F'd Companies was funny maybe in 2000 - 2001. This book is Kaplan's sad attempt to use every last scrap of the buffalo.

    --
    I am a virus, put me in your .sig
    1. Re:Good-quality sarcasm = penises and pr0n? by matt_wilts · · Score: 1

      >he provably still wapits to the lingerie section of the Sears catalog.

      Doesn't everyone??

      Shit......

  39. Publisher: Simon & Schuster; 1st ed (April 20 by droopus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Um, why is Slashdot reviewing a book that came out in April 2002?

    In 2001 FC was a funny read, considering most of us either worked for, or knew people who worked for some of the firms in the book.

    Haven't been many flameouts of hugely funded wesellfuckall.com companies lately, so FC has turned into a rather nasty insult site, short on content. The book is nowhere near as fun to read as the site anyway.

    So, why a review of a ten month old book?

    --
    "The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
  40. That's part of the Genius... by Pii · · Score: 1
    I mean, how can you market a viable product (the book) if you're going to get sued repeatedly. That would decimate the bottom line.

    I guess that's what makes Kaplan qualified to author such a book.

    My own company (I was an employee, not the owner), back in 2000, was featured on the website, and at the time, had generated the most comments ever. If any of you have a subscription, search the archives for a thread entitled "Amazing Grace." It'll be worth your time, providing a good deal of amusement, that is, until the racist trolls took the thread over.

    --
    For those that would die defending it, Freedom
    has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
  41. Scripts are easy! Security and testing is a sham! by jolshefsky · · Score: 0, Informative
    "Why does this photograph cost $500? It's about a $50 frame and maybe $18 for the reprint ..."

    Now we get to be in the same boat with website design. "Why will it be several months at $150 per hour to make my e-commerce site? I read this book where the guy said he could write a script to do the whole thing."

    Just what we need. Someone promoting the idea that testing and security isn't necessary and that writing a script to do something is a zero-time proposition to do once. I wish I knew which companies he advised to work this way ...

    At least he says "fuck" a lot which makes it funny.

    --
    --- Jason Olshefsky

    Karma: Poser (mostly affected by adding this line long after everyone else did)

  42. Mod parent up by Gizzmonic · · Score: 1

    This is very true, and it's actually at a higher level of discourse than Philip Kaplan's book is.

    Certainly this opinion deserves to be part of the discussion...or is everyone on this site a brainless Pud fanboy?

    --
    (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
  43. Dumbest Moments in e-Business history by frozenray · · Score: 3, Informative
    Here's a classic article from business2.com.

    Example:

    In its prospectus, Buy.com unveils history's most elegant business model: "We sell a substantial portion of our products at very low prices. As a result, we have extremely low and sometimes negative gross margins on our product sales."

    Pure genius.

    And here you can find "The 101 Dumbest Moments in Business", featuring Steve "Monkeyboy" Ballmer prominently on the first page.
    --
    "There are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare." - Blair Houghton
  44. the anti-f'ed up company by ACK!! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The dot commers are amazing. I was inspired to look up an old company I use to work for. They employed about 12 people total.

    They had three sales people, three support people, on tester, one secretary, three programmers. One of the programmers doubled as their sysadmin. The support staff had to work on bugs for Q&A in their time between calls. Advanced Productivity software literally had clients that were some of the biggest lawfirms around.

    They made a product. They sold a product. They made money.

    The guys who started the thing took out personal loans to keep it going for awhile. He passed out profits back to the employees when times were good. Honestly, if there was a place to be promoted to or a position open when I was ready to go on I probably would have never left.

    Small companies can survive in the IT world. They just have to have half a clue in their heads to do it.

    Fill a niche, concetrate and expand along the niche not outside it, keep employee and overhead costs low (their building was nothing grand but I had my own office).

    This is basic business stuff that many companies still have no concept of.

    --
    ACK /ak/ interj. 2. [from the comic strip "Bloom County"] An exclamation of surprised disgust, esp. i
  45. cheaper by Spoons · · Score: 1

    If you want to buy it, amazon has it cheaper.

  46. Text of article in case it gets /.ed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [Posting AC so I can't be accused of karma whoring.]

    Posted by timothy on 01-21-03 10:30
    Alex Moskalyuk writes "Philip J. Kaplan's F'd Companies is a compilation of famous and not so well-publicized dot-com flameouts. Most of the companies that are described in the book do not exist today, for some others the domain names are being used for similar businesses, but the original management and business plans are gone. Even though F'd Companies presents several chapters in the table of contents, it's better viewed just as compilation of dot-com mishaps, with about one or two pages dedicated to each company." Read on for more Schadenfreude. F'd Companies
    author Philip J. Kaplan
    pages 224
    publisher Simon & Schuster
    rating 8/10
    reviewer Alex Moskalyuk
    ISBN 0743228626
    summary Spectacular dot-com flameouts

    Everyone who's visited the author's Web site at least once has probably noticed Kaplan's style of writing -- raunchy humor abundantly supplemented with free use of four-letter words, which is then mingled with frequent references to the author's male organ and Internet pr0n industry. Not that the book loses its charm because of it -- F'd Companies would probably make a poor choice for a kid's present, but after getting used to Kaplan's style of writing the obscenities and euphemisms add hilarity to otherwise dry management text. Here's Kaplan's contemplation on the value of domain name Wapit.com (now defunct):

    The company had a cool name though. I love to wapit in the morning when I first wake up with my stiffy, wapit in the stall of the men's bathroom at lunchtime, and wapit before I go to sleep.
    The book is full of references to defunct companies, and reader can easily skip the chapters if some companies sound more interesting than others. The chapter names are well-chosen and represent the author's style well. "$100 SHOPPING SPREE IF YOU READ THIS CHAPTER" talks about the numerous get-paid-for-browsing-the-Internet companies, the industry that was pioneered by AllAdvantage.com and supported later by numerous copycats. "Portals to nowhere" talks about such huge money-burners as Go.com and QuePasa.com. The chapter for 'miscellaneous' companies that did not fit any other chapter is titled "I've no fucking clue."

    If you look for objective analysis, or used to work for some of the companies mentioned in the book, do not buy it if you consider yourself a sensitive person. Kaplan disparaging remarks are what makes this book a worthy read. Here are some of the selected quotes regarding bankrupt dot-coms.

    IHarvest.com: "I don't think I've ever seen a more useless company than iHarvest.com. Actually, I am sure of it. Such a waste."

    CalendarCentral.com: "Why would an application service provider like CalendarCentral.com, a site that provides shared, online calendars for group scheduling, go out of business? Microsoft Outlook/Exchange you say? [description of business model that never worked follows] Another one assimilated by the Borg... and Microsoft probably didn't even notice."

    OnlineChoice.com: "And this one cost investors around $20 million and employed seventy people. Seventy people. This business, this WEBSITE, could have been run by a SCRIPT. Zero employees. Okay, MAYBE a couple of people to broker deals with suppliers."

    SwapIt.com: "So let me get this straight: 1) I send them a CD. 2) They give me useless "SwapIt Bucks." 3) They go out of business. 4) I get nothing. Great, sign me up! [...] I believe this is the only dotcom that actually had people SENDING them product and they STILL couldn't stay in business."

    Being a Web developer, Kaplan just goes into fits when talking about the high-cost Web site development. He admits that some sites might be more demanding than others, but any 6- or 7- digit number and above, in his opinion, is just plain ridiculous. Talking about Rx.com, Kaplan is blunt: "This company had $350 million to build a fucking website and market it a little. I mean, if they spent $1 million a year, they could have been around for hundred of years without a single sale." In a two-page rant about high-cost developer MarchFirst.com, Kaplan admits: "Anyway, building websites is relatively easy. That's not to say that everyone can do it, nor that anyone would be interested in learning how. [...] Generally, it's not brain surgery (which I'm assuming is kinda tricky). [...] I'm an idiot and even I was able to build a successful small business building websites. Thing is, we didn't charge millions to build a five-minute CGI email form. That's why we're still around." (Kaplan's agency is PK Interactive.)

    By now you should get a feel of the book. It's easy to read, and is sometimes just hilarious, as Philip Kaplan has good-quality sarcasm almost in every sentence. The book would be of interest to tech types, especially those who had been involved in dot-com craze. For serious business types it provides valuable lessons on how not to run a new business. Kaplan's book is a valuable addition to the history of the Internet economy.

  47. Pud (Phil Kaplan) is a troll and the book is a POS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the same guy that recently had a contest where the people in forum.fuckedcompany.com trolled the craigslist.org personals. He put what he considered the funniest responses online, including one where some peson had responded with their real name, address, and phone number.

    The guy also put an "article" on the front page of his site about CmdrTaco masturbating.

    90% of that book was written by the users of FC. The only parts Pud wrote were the parts where he was writing about looking at porn, and snorting coke.

  48. Time by Pyromage · · Score: 1

    In addition to what other posters have said, it takes time.

    2 years ago the pendulum had swung so far into the other extreme that a ten year old could get multimillion dollar funding for a modern art made of dog poop 3d scanning through the mail startup.

    Now we're on the other end: People have seen so much stupidity and crap and dying dot coms with no business plan that we're at the end where we'll need a lot more to get things through.

    In time, the averages will work out. But that doesn't help you much now, does it?

  49. How names are created by Codex+The+Sloth · · Score: 3, Informative

    Salon had a great article about the way that names were created (back in 99). The company came up with a name JamCracker that no-one wanted:

    It seems that when Altman and Manning presented the name Jamcracker to a client recently, the reception was not everything they had hoped for. "I put the name up in front of their creative people," Manning says. "There were a couple of women sitting in. One of them got up and said, 'Oh, that's disgusting.' Another said, 'This is really sick.' I said, 'Excuse me, what are you talking about?' They said, 'We can't explain it, but that name is just creeping us out. We don't know what it is, but could you take it off the wall, please?'" Manning remains mystified by the incident. "There's apparently some strange, uncomfortable meaning attached to it in the minds of some women," he says. "God knows what that could be."

    I was somewhat amused in 2000 when a company started up using that name!

    --
    I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you ... oh wait, I'm #93427. Ha ha! In your face #93428!
    1. Re:How names are created by cpeterso · · Score: 2, Insightful


      What exactly is "sick" about the name Jamcracker? It's not like the name was "Crack Jammer" (and even that does not really mean anything).

    2. Re:How names are created by abhisarda · · Score: 1

      what IS in jamcracker that is so offensive? mind explaining..

  50. .com's best at nothing? by mao+che+minh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What are you kidding me? .com's are the stellar leaders in the innovative digital distribution of adult entertainment worldwide. No nobody can beat them at this game.

  51. What in the living fuck is this shit? by c0d3h4x0r · · Score: 1

    What in the living fuck is this shit?

    --
    Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
  52. Time to move on by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    I don't want to hear anything more about dot.com meltdowns. I *lived* them. The first was a combination ebay and Yahoo-stores: "Build your auction site! Your own categories, your own listings....", the second was an e-drugstore. The e-drugstore blatently *copied* their product descriptions from their competitor's website about 6 months before I joined. When I found that out, I knew it was doomed. Either they would be caught when the grew large enough to warrent the attention of the competitor, or they would stay small and fade. The parent company pulled the plug when the stock market popped and fired the web staff.

    Maybe when I am 65 I will want to reminesce about the past and read just a book to travel down Memory Lane. But right now I don't want to hear ANYTHING more about stupid dot.com's and what a gullable shmuck I was. "Stock options" my ass. I did not actively seek such things, I just kind of ended up in the middle of it somewhow in a boil-the-frog-slowly sense. Well, it was kind of fun while it lasted I suppose. It was a roller coaster ride in which the tracks ended abruptly by jutting out in mid-air. Free fall.

    1. Re:Time to move on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and read just a book

      Correction. Should be "and read such a book"

      when the grew large

      Correction. Should be "when they grew large"

      Dammit, it looked fine in the preview, I swear :-)

  53. Network effects by FallLine · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Slashdot? Slashdot's design is fine, judging by the ridiculously high user IDs we see, not to mention the sheer capacity of its users to bring any site in existance to its knees.

    If Slashdot's design was so horrible, people wouldn't use it. Maybe in the early days when there was no equivalent, people were stuck here.. The fact remains, however, that no one worries about the 'kuro5hin effect'.

    As for business sense.. CmdrTaco, Hemos and everyone else's hobby is being effectively sponsored by a largely visible name in the open source world. Sure, the Slashdot crew isn't in it for profit - but ending up with the deal they have isn't too shabby. Would that actual business people had the sense they did. ;)
    I disagree. Just because slashdot (and many other entities) are large and relatively popular does not mean that they are particularly good or even just not mediocre. People may be technically free to move on the other alternatives, but with a product or service like this there is something known as a network effect. When many other people use the product or service (or ~90% in this particular niche) that is its primary value. Even though competing alternatives may be superior in every way, in and of themselves, the fact is that it can be very hard to coordinate a sufficiently large movement of people to a single standard/product/service/etc. For instance, do I really want to post to kuro5hin when no one else, or at least no one more in the main stream, will read me? Do I really want to read kuro5hin when there are few people posting? Do I really feel compelled to reply on kuro5hin to an article or comment that I disagree with (for the sake of other readers? Note: I'm not saying kuru5hin is the be all and end all, from what little i've seen of it it is too complex and silly for mass popularity.

    In slashdot's particular case, I happen to think that the design of their backend is rather inefficient (it was a hack and it seems to still be), their frontend could use a lot of work, their moderation system could be improved upon without much added complexity, their editing is just plain horrendous, their bias spills over unnecessarily in many cases, and what little original content that they do produce is unimpressive at best. In short, they're mismanaged and they're missing out on a lot of opportunity. Slashdot, as it stands today and has always been, is nothing more than some hacked together scripts, some hardware, sloppy editing/administration, and a lot of popularity amongst young techies. It could be much better if they were a little smarter and worked a lot harder.
    1. Re:Network effects by flynt · · Score: 1

      I think Slashdot should start over and cover more than just tech news. Tech News would be a subsection of what they cover. Slashdot is obviously a good idea. But imagine the amount of users they would have if they would cover more than just tech news, and in a more responsible manner. Everyone would use it.

    2. Re:Network effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ever try plastic?

  54. Swapit.com by istartedi · · Score: 1

    One day when I had nothing better to do, I keyed "free stuff" into a search engine. One of the hits said swapit.com was giving away free T-shirts, so I gave them my address. Not only did they send me a T-shirt, but they also sent me a mailer for my CDs that looked like it cost at least a dollar to buy, ship, handle/process etc. I never did any business with swapit. They could have easily spent $10 to get my business--and I gave them nothing in return. I have no regrets. I still have the T-shirt, and I still wear it. It's a pretty nice piece of swag. It's black with the swapit logo on the front, and a swapit logo on the back upon which is superimposed the slogan "SWAP THE DEAD FOR LIVE". Now that's ironic, isn't it?

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Swapit.com by garbs · · Score: 1

      Hehe, reminds me of when Geocities was not owned by Yahoo, and the time of the Community Leader.

      I was a community leader for a couple months, did bugger all, got a free t-shirt and hat shipped out to me (all the way to Australia), I still wear the t-shirt almost daily.

      I also got 10 shares in Geocities, that were converted to 6 Yahoo shares and $120 or something like that. I later sold them for about $400 each.

      All this for almost bugger all work, and of course, don't get me started on my celebrity fan websites I had for a while.

      Damn, I miss the dot com era, so much easy money and stuff to be made, now I'm busting my but to make ends meet working a going no where job, while trying to finish my comp sci degree.

    2. Re:Swapit.com by mph · · Score: 1, Funny
      I still wear the t-shirt almost daily.
      Thanks for that little glimpse of Australian hygiene.
    3. Re:Swapit.com by garbs · · Score: 1


      Thanks for that little glimpse of Australian hygiene.


      So that's why women stay away from me, now I get it.

      Oh yeah, I guess I should've mentioned it gets washed daily, but oh well...

    4. Re:Swapit.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wear the same t-shirt almost every day - and have for YEARS?

      GOOD GOD, MAN!

    5. Re:Swapit.com by mph · · Score: 1

      Jeez, Flamebait (-1)? You'd probably run screaming from a Jay Leno monologue. Even the guy I "flamed" knew it was a joke.

  55. I can tell YOU don't run a business... by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's called "Customer Relations" and "Repeat Business". You might want to look into it.

    As the old saying goes, just because you *can* do something, doesn't mean you *should*...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:I can tell YOU don't run a business... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the old saying goes, just because you *can* do something, doesn't mean you *should*...

      This is Slashdot. Land of the whiners. Everyone wants free movies, music, bandwidth, and whatever else they think they have coming to them.

      Of course these are also the same people who possibly worked for a failed dot-com company. :)

    2. Re:I can tell YOU don't run a business... by Hobophile · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Actually, for what it's worth, I have run a successful computer consulting business.

      Basically all I'm saying is if a customer comes to you and says, "I need a website. This is what I want. I have a million dollars budgeted for this."

      You have a number of options. You can:

      1) Take all $1 million. The customer has it budgeted, they're willing to pay it, and if you get a million dollars from them for a 5 minute job it hardly matters if you keep them as a client.

      2) Take only $100,000, or only $50,000. Sure, the job's not worth a million, but is it really worth $100,000 or $50,000 either? The difference here is one of scale. Either way you're charging more than the work is technically worth to you, so if you really feel bad about it, there's always...

      3) Take only what it costs you, or even less. After all, if you do it at cost, or for free, they'll love you, and you'll have them as a client forever. In fact, they'll probably haunt you till the day you finally close up shop because you're burned out from handling all the jobs they throw your way and you're not making any money for your efforts.

      The reality of the marketplace is that demand and willingness to pay for a product at a certain price dictate the product's price.

      You can get all high and mighty about how you're honest and you still have a job, but maybe if you took a few of those million dollar throwaway jobs every now and again you'd have the luxury of posting to slashdot in the middle of the afternoon without your boss looking over your shoulder, instead of consoling yourself with how you're still in the web design business.

  56. The bill... by Dr.+Photo · · Score: 3, Funny
    5-Minute Website: $1
    Stupidity Surcharge: $10,000,000

    Total: $10,000,001

    Well, at least the company can write off most of that as an "education" expense... :)

    1. Re:The bill... by Tackhead · · Score: 3, Funny
      > 5-Minute Website: $1
      >Stupidity Surcharge: $10,000,000
      >
      > Total: $10,000,001

      "Stupidity Surcharge"? Sorry, but I think you misspelled "Consulting/Agency Fees".

    2. Re:The bill... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > "Stupidity Surcharge"? Sorry, but I think you misspelled "Consulting/Agency Fees".

      That's not a misspelling, those are synonyms. :-P

  57. Ashamed to admit my cluelessness... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 0, Redundant

    But what did they (claim to) do?

    Wapit.com?
    iHarvest.com?
    CalendarCentral.com -- I can figure this one out, and the reviewer told us.
    OnlineChoice.com? -- What did they do that probably didn't require employees?
    SwapIt.com? -- What, you gave them your CDs for credit to buy other people's used CDs? Surprised the RIAA didn't shut them down before they went tits up :-P

    --
    Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    1. Re:Ashamed to admit my cluelessness... by Istealmymusic · · Score: 1
      WapIt, June 16th, 2001:

      Wapit believes in a mobile driven future and is dedicated to lead the new generation of simple, time and place independent mobile communication.

      Wapit creates advanced mobile middleware technology and applications. Our customers can use our technology to build and maintain multiple, revenue generating mobile solutions tailored to their market needs.

      Founded in 1998, Wapit Ltd. headquarters are in Helsinki, Finland.

      Whatever that means. Don't know about iHarvest though--and maybe never will, considering they setup a robots.txt to block archive.org.

      OnlineChoice:

      Sunday
      January 27, 2002

      491,524 group buying members!

      Saving on everyday services has never been easier. With OnlineChoice, you join hundreds of thousands of others in powerful, free, no obligation consumer buying pools -- and we use this collective clout to negotiate great deals. Group buying power lowers your monthly bills.

      SwapIt went tits up:

      1) What happened to Swapit?

      Swapit was forced to close down because it could not obtain additional funding. As soon as it became apparent that no further funding would take place, Swapit shut down its website.

      2) Is Swapit coming back?

      Swapit is closed permanently. It is not coming back under another name or as another company.

      3) What happens to my credits?

      According to the Terms and Conditions of Use to which all Swapit Members agreed to prior to using the Swapit site, once any of the CDs and games was accepted, customers were credited with "Swapit Bucks" which are not redeemable for cash under any circumstances whatsoever. Since Swapit is now closed, credits are not able to be redeemed and are gone.

      4) Can I get my CDs and games back?

      According to the Terms and Conditions of Use, transfer of title of ownership occurred upon acceptance of the goods by Swapit. At that point, the goods became the property of Swapit. Swapit's lender, which has a secured interest in all of Swapit's assets, including the CDs and games, is owed much more than the value of Swapit's property. Swapit expects the secured lender to foreclose upon Swapit's property. Swapit does not know what the secured lender intends to do with the property once it completes the foreclosure.

      5) Are there arrangements for settlement with customers?

      Due to its circumstances, Swapit is not able to offer its customers financial compensation. Swapit is exploring whether it may be possible for its customers to receive credits with other similar sites. At this time, there are no arrangements in place. If it becomes possible for customers to receive credit with another site, you will see a notice posted at Swapit.com

      Which confirms what Pud said. Bummer. Before they kicked the bucket, SwapIt was swapping used music CDs and games:

      Chocolate Starfish & The Hotdog Flavored WaterChocolate Starfish & The Hotdog Flavored Water
      Limp Bizkit /$5.00
      games
      browse all games

      NASCAR 2001NASCAR 2001
      PlayStation2 /$24.00
      1 Halfway Between The Gutter & The Stars (Explicit) (Fatboy Slim) /$6.75
      2 Jagged Little Pill (Alanis Morissette) /$2.50
      3 Tragic Kingdom (No Doubt) /$2.50Crazy Taxi (Dreamcast) /$14.00
      2 Lunar Silver Star Story (PlayStation) /$28.00
      3 Tony Hawk's Pro Skater (PlayStation) /$13.25

      --
      "The lesson to be learned is not to take the comments on slashdot too literally." --Vinnie Falco, BearShare
    2. Re:Ashamed to admit my cluelessness... by WWWWolf · · Score: 1

      Wapit was making Mobile Phone Service Stuff. You know, stuff for this "WAP" thing that was such a major success that almost three people bought a cell phone that supported it and one actually tried the services once... one prominent figure employed by them was Lars Wirzenius, friend of Linus Torvalds, a Debian guy and, um, appeared in the newsgroups or something.

      Some stuff from Wapit is still alive due to this "open source" idea thingy. People say Kannel beats Nokia's WAP/SMS gateway software easily =)

  58. Smell-U Smell-Me will survive by Wee · · Score: 1
    SmellU SmellMe(R), the premiere Aroma Conferencing software, is coming soon from RealAroma. It'll be big. Big! I tell you...

    -B

    --

    Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

  59. not nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ha ha ha these companies were stupid and we're so smart... just doesn't seem like a nice attitude.
    Lots of "silly" business survive. Who knew at the time.

  60. Just go to the website by arrogance · · Score: 1

    The book's gotten mixed reviews and not just from people who were the targets. But I'd say the value in F'd Company is the website: if you can get beyond the "I'm the first post you {racial/sexist epithet}XXXX{/racial/sexist epithet} and here's my XXX website" posts, there are some posts that have (apparently) real gossip on these companies. He also links to Internal Memos quite often. Fun to read how other people are getting screwed: there's one there called, kinda recursively, Salacious gossip and internal confidential information posted on a tacky website .

    Hey, the guy's gonna try to make cash however he can, and there's a finite amount in internet ad revenue and amateur pr0n.

  61. Nope by FallLine · · Score: 1

    As one of my lateral posters commented, consultants tend to be anything but "serious business types". I'm not familiar with this particular CEO, but I'd hardly expect him, on the basis of his position with Accenture, to be really familiar with business operations. Also, WebVan "only" managed to raise about 400m. While that's a whole lot of money, it's a far cry short from 1b. You're almost certainly referring to their market capitalization (which at some point exceeded 1b), but that's a very different thing all together.

  62. medscape.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what i saw at medscape:

    1. 75 million/year of investors money blown out the chute.

    2. execs hiring their friends. friends who pose as high-end consultants. friends who do not know jack. friends who charge close to $1000/hour !

    3. friends who then pay the execs on the backend, on the outside.

    4. execs found a way to get that investor money out the door into thier own pockets.

    this is one way of many, one of the few i care to explain.

    silly company

    smart execs have big boats and mistresses now,,,

  63. Re:Everyone knows my favorite by bigdady92 · · Score: 0

    hey was that based out of miami? I interviewd (and got the job) down there but couldn't move for various reasons...care to email me and tell me how it f'd up?

    b _ d at ya ho o. c o m

    thanks!

    --
    Wheel of Time: Book by Book and Sumview (summary review) Bigdady92 style: http://bigdady92.blogspot.com/
  64. "serious business types" by sirshannon · · Score: 1

    maybe most dotcoms didn't have real business types in them (maybe) but the banks that loaned them millions did. The VCs that invested in them did. The Stock Brokers than conned people into investing did.

    Over-eager entrepenuers [damn that must be spelled wrong] are not totally to blame, just like a kid is a candy store isn't totally to blame when he asks for one of each and his dad says "sure!"

  65. Here is one that will stay around for a while by alen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.dirtcheapdiamonds.com

    I just picked mine up from the appraiser's office. I saved a ton of money compared to going retail and got me a great diamond. As far as I can tell it's the owner and 2 employees in a tiny office suite in Maryland. The diamonds are at wholesalers in NYC. These guys just charge an 8% mark up for running a website doing pretty well from what I have heard in the last week.

    This is what the internet is really about. Finding ways to sell goods more efficiently. Why pay the retail mark up which includes rent, insurance, security and salaries?

    1. Re:Here is one that will stay around for a while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, like I am going to ship a diamond to an appraiser (to sell a diamond ring). That seems slightly more risky than
      entering a credit card number at Amazon.

    2. Re:Here is one that will stay around for a while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm ... and they just happen to advertise on fuckedcompany.com, from whence you clicked.

      Nice plug for yourself, though. You got the balz for biz.

  66. YOU INSENSITIVE PERSON! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I had a great idea for a company that provided online free-lunches, but just before it took off, it was slashdotted!

  67. Pud's 15 minutes are up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy has tried umpteen different "get rich off other peoples' content and/or misery" schemes for years. As pure dumb luck would have it, he was in the right place at the right time and got his 15 minutes via F'd Company. I appreciate the site as a clearing house of useful info on what's going on with dot-coms, but he can't keep his dick in his pants, or his feet out of his mouth long enough to focus on what works, without trying to leverage every little tiny bit of attention he can get to promote all the other boneheaded ideas he has. That's the problem - I wouldn't purchase his book because the content is already online, and I don't want to further promote this dork's exploitive, annoyingly stereotypical, tired self-deprecating, brain-cell-depleting sorry excuse for a work ethic.

    Can you call this a troll when I'm merely criticizing his motivation for criticizing everyone else's motivation? I agree his observations are valid, but anyone with half a brain could already see that my-buttcheeks.com, with a $20M investment, was probably not a good business move. I claim the same boneheaded lack of good business sense that inflated all the failing dot-coms is the same boneheadedness that gives this dork any increased chance of getting laid off this exploitation.

    I think this is a poingnant commentary on the state of our society. He is like the guy who sets up a lemonade stand at the sight of a train wreck to make some money off of rubberneckers, at the same time, booking his horrible band, hawking t-shirts, promoting his public appearance in the bathroom of the nearby Exxon station, and oh yea, publishing a book of photos he's clipped out of newspapers of crash victims. Woo hoo! Three cheers for good ol' American Ingenuity!

    Oh, and Mr. Krap-lan, I know you're reading all of this because you're so obsessed with yourself, let me deflate your modus oprandi: Pulling the reverse-psychology BS of calling yourself a dork loser is not going to convince anyone that perhaps, you actually aren't a dork loser. We all know the truth, and we don't need a web site to tell us that. Your 15 minutes are up. Go back to selling upskirt pics and mass e-mailing penis enlargement solicitations.

  68. Zelerate by Jboy_24 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My ol' company was in there, and for interest to slashdot users, it was an opensourced perl based system.

    The problem with Kaplan's review, is that he really just wrote based on that one sentance explanation. After reading that I put the book down. I presume Kaplan had a list made with name and one sentance discription and he just wrote a blurb based on that. There was no research into each company, I'm not sure by reading that you get any insight into each company's workings and problems. A better book, would be to allow an simpathetic former employee write an obituary, then include some of the comments from his website when the company went under to retort and bring some feeling back into it.

    Zelerate died for a number of reasons, the least being the capability of the opensourced model to sustain business. Our problems were basically the same as every other .com, the preasure to repay investor's money with a lucritive IPO gave too little time to the proper development of the software, too high a credence to marketing the company and the need for some 'star' founders put too little expierence in the management of the company.

    If we just developed, found patient beta company's to develop for, followed the traditional alpha-beta-production timelines, AND got our heads out of the clouds, we just might be still around. But, as anyone who worked in or around .coms back in 99-00 knows, all of that was an impossibility at that time.

    1. Re:Zelerate by Jboy_24 · · Score: 1

      And even worse, now the .org side of our company is now represented by a porn site!

      Not Safe For Work

      From once prominate slashdot advertiser, with our famous animal butts banner, to porn...

  69. How '90s by flimflam · · Score: 1

    You need at least a 50" Plasma these days!

    --
    -- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
  70. Eh? by FyRE666 · · Score: 1

    Most of the companies that are described in the book do not exist today, for some others the domain names are being used for similar businesses, but the original management and business plans are gone.

    "Business plans?", sorry, run that by me again; since when did a dot.com company have of those??? The ones where I worked used the tried and tested Wing+prayer+blind optimism business model...

  71. Re:Everyone knows my favorite by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1, Funny
    ...care to email me and tell me how it f'd up?
    What part of
    ...who spent 6 million in 7 months...
    Don't you get?

    <digression> One day I was talking to a friend in some kind of junky internet company (you may know them, they have a sports stadium named after them). "What's your burn rate" he asked. "What's a burn rate?" I naively replied. He explained. I had to explain to the poor looser that we'd made a profit for every month since we'd started business. Tee Hee. </digression>

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  72. What the fuck? by autopr0n · · Score: 2, Funny

    You can't put fuck in a book title? That licks monkey choad. When is society going to grow up and stop being a bunch uptight cunts?

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:What the fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey dirtbag, if you can't keep a fucking civil tongue in your head then piss off.

      Tosser.

  73. But the important question is.... by t0ny · · Score: 0
    Is Mandrake in there?

    Is Red Hat in F'd Companies part II?

    Is Loki in there?

    I could go on, but this is getting boring.

    --

    Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

  74. Re:Pud (Phil Kaplan) is a troll and the book is a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're right, and yet he makes all the money. I don't know why people read his crap and worship the ground he walks on ... oops! Gotta run and get ready for my American Idol party tonight!

  75. Oh shush up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, you are just bitter. In the immortal words of Homer Simpson, "It's funny because it's happening to somebody else".

    Words to live by, my friend.

    1. Re:Oh shush up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the sake of being pedantic, "It's funny 'cause I don't know him."

  76. When will it end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    F'd company should serve as a very real warning to those out there that still work in companies held over from the "Internet Bubble" era. Apparently funding doesnt mean that your company does anything worth while. Just because your company has 50$ million dollars in funding doesnt mean they're worth 50mil.... it just means they're 50$ mil in debt! How can these companies expect to stay around in this economy if they owe their investors that much money with little to no revenue?? Not to mention pissed off workers.

    Just look at the latest batch from today alone! Securify, Marrakech, Crescent Networks .... truly f'd!

    "Breach"
    Rumor has it, $50 million later, Securify just layed off around 20% of its workforce. Word is remaining employees get a 10% paycut.
    When: 1/21/2003
    Company: Securify.com
    Severity: 80
    Points: 180

    Marred
    $55 million later, Marrakech axed 30 -- 70 remain.
    When: 1/21/2003
    Company: Marrakech
    Severity: 65
    Points: 165

    Croissanwich
    "We regret to announce that Crescent Networks has ceased operations," says their site, $50 million later.
    When: 1/20/2003
    Company: Crescent Networks
    Severity: 100 - new hall of fame inductee!
    Points: 200

  77. Connection between F'd Co. and morbid sexuality? by hyacinthus · · Score: 1

    Every few weeks I check out Fucked Company for a laugh (and when I was working at such a company, I kept hoping it would appear on the site--I didn't have the guts to submit it myself.) But I'm never amused for long, because the site seems overrun with people who, frankly, seem like good candidates for psychological counselling. There's something a little disquieting about an anonymous geek posting to a public forum on how he'd like to "fuck [CEO of company] in the ass" or how some company's workers must be "bending over for the bosses" or how some woman executive makes the geek want to "blow his load". It is cliche to say this, I know, but These Guys Have Issues.

    hyacinthus.

  78. Why Slashdot needs to publish all book reviews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It's amazing how many people are actually missing the point about what Slashdot reviews are for, and what Slashdot basically is. Here are just some reasons off the top of my head why we need to have reviews of brand new as well as not so new books.


    Availability of used copies. If the book has been around for a little bit, the chances of finding it in a local used book store or Amazon Marketplace are greater. Not all of us can afford to cash out $80 for a new copy out there. This book wouldn't qualify for it, but some computer titles reviewed on Slashdot would.


    People can discuss it. Of course, I can post my review of X# Programming for Microsoft Linux OS 2007, and then just tell that the book is out in January 2006, so all you suxxors just have to wait to read it or post some stupid offtopic comments. Instead a review of the book that people already have would allow for more intelligent discussion, and allows different opinions on the book.


    Other reviews out there. You can always compare the review to other book opinions out there, especially in the magazines and Web sites that specialize on new stuff.


    That's not to say that Slashdot reviewers should post long reviews of the Old Testament or Shakespear's works, but reviewing books that have been around a little on discussion site like Slashdot is definitely better than reading a short blurb on a brand new thing in Time magazine.

  79. WARNING - READ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is a link to the amazon item without the poster's affiliate link embedded.

  80. Somebody had to do it. by datadictator · · Score: 1

    May my karma forgive me :-)

    Company Fucker
    Everybody knows to what tune to sing it

    Shut your fucking face comp'ny fucker
    your a cocksucking asslicking compny' fucker
    you're a comp'ny fucker yes it's true
    nobody fucks comp'nys quite like you

    Shut your fucking face comp'ny fucker
    your the one that fucked your comp'ny comp'ny fucker
    You don't eat or sleep or mow the lawn you just fuck your comp'ny all day long

    Comp'ny...Fucker....Comp'ny...Fucker

    You're a comp'ny fucker I must say
    You fucked your comp'ny yesterday


    A fuck it.

  81. THE PERFECT BUSINESS PLAN by superpulpsicle · · Score: 0

    1.) Sit in your basement
    2.) Watch .com startups go up
    3.) Watch .com startups go down
    4.) On yellow stickies, keep track of startups going down.
    5.) Turn yellow stickies to book

    6.) PROFIT!!!!

  82. Coming soon by duffbeer703 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    A review of Shakespere's new play -- Julius Caesar.

    --
    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  83. Not only that by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    If you read the artical there was also an anecdote about a board who stared calling eachother by the 1000monkey's names, including a woman who called herself "JamCracker."

    I thought it was helarious (even registed the slashdot name jamcracker, btw).

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  84. Just his style... by SurrealKnife · · Score: 1

    Personally, I don't like his writing style. However, I have friends who roll on the floor in fits of laughter when reading... since the book is essentially (rather base) humor, not information (since you can pull the information from a lot of places), only buy it if you know you like the way he writes!

    Maybe in a few years when you can't pull this nfo from all over the place, and it's fallen out of the public consciousness, it could do with a more informative rewrite.

  85. The women's reactions were a clue... by davidmb · · Score: 1
    A Jamcracker is a women who's having her period. Her crack is full of jam...

    Don't blame me for the above!

  86. You are a scumbag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How'd a piece of shit like you get a +2 bonus?

  87. not ALWAYS crap failures... by Anitra · · Score: 1

    I dunno, sometimes .com's can succeed wildly - where else could you find a company that went from hobby to millions of dollars in revenue in less than 4 years? (Yeah, I volunteered, then worked for them.. point's still valid).

    --

    Have you read the Moderation Guidelines Addendum?