Technologies To Watch Fail In 2009

An anonymous reader writes "Microblogs, targeted advertising, social news, online video, streaming music, and enterprise social networking are among the technologies that will probably fail in 2009, according to a new report from Internet Evolution. The report cites revenue figures, failed or non-existent business models, and an overabundance of 'me-too' start-ups, combined with the current recession, as reasons the aforementioned technologies might not survive the year. 'Whereas the past couple of years have been defined by overcrowding and overfunding in the Web 2.0 space, and an onslaught of startups with no purpose or plan to make money, this recessionary year is likely to see more due diligence on the part of VCs, allowing strong companies and technologies to emerge from the smoldering pile of dead ones.'"

Comments

Not technologies that will fail

[stoolpigeon]

When I read the summary I was pretty annoyed - but I went and read the article (crazy I know) and that helped because it doesn't say these technologies will fail. It says some of the companies trying to make money off these technologies will fail. That's something completely different and I would agree that they are probably right. Of course most start-ups fail so making that kind of a prediction is a bit of a safe bet.
 
The thing is a lot of this stuff, I'm thinking especially of microblogging since that has really been something I've been interested in a quite a bit recently, will not go away because a lot of people really enjoy using the technology. That it is difficult to turn that into a way to make money makes me happy. So what if twitter fails? People can just move to identi.ca. Then no one needs to make any money off the platform - they just need to enjoy it and participate for motives other than financial benefit. The costs will still exist but they will be spread out across all the participants.
 
There is that segment of any new community that see it as a way to make money. Those people are rife in most social spaces ( web 2.0 or whatever you want to call it ) right now. People who just want to constantly talk about making twitter a part of your strategy to increase your fan base to make more money or how to use facebook to get rich, etc. I can't wait until they are gone.
 
What is exciting to me is that most of the alternatives that will step up to fill the vacuum left by the failed commercial attempts are open. That means I can enjoy interacting with a wide array of people all over the world but maintain control over what happens and participate on my terms.

Re:Not technologies that will fail

[stoolpigeon]

That model is completely unnecessary. There is no reason for any kind of revenue - just people who want to get to know others, participate in a community, etc. And if by buzz you mean all those marketing types and prognosticators going away - then like I said, I can't wait for it to go away. Those people are amazingly annoying.

Re:Not technologies that will fail

[kjart]

There is no reason for any kind of revenue - just people who want to get to know others, participate in a community, etc.

That's absurd - who pays the cost necessary to actually keep such a service running?

Re:Not technologies that will fail

[AmigaHeretic]

>>All you need with a federated service like identi.ca is a small percentage of the participants to host a server. and those people just need a hosting account they can get out of their disposable income.

So my choices are pay money and host a server or see a little AD to have some other company do all the work for me?

I think it's easier for me to have a little AD on the side of the page when I log into Twitter. Easier and free.

Re:Not technologies that will fail

[Franio]

No, he means that the choice is somebody (not necessarily you) paying money. Wikipedia is free to everyone with no ads because some people pay for it through donations.

Re:Not technologies that will fail

[Anonymous Coward]

I would love to understand why people hold the economic ideas they do regarding Internet services.

Why is it absurd to pay for some service I want, or form a co-op, or just share with my community out of good nature, instead of trying to harass with advertisements as micro-payment?

Why don't we expect other activities to be handled the same way? When someone goes on a coffee run or brings bagels to the office, they just use a cash pool or rough karma balance. They don't expect to find an ad-supported free coffee and bagel service to drag into the office.

I am a modest coffee drinker, perhaps averaging about one $2 espresso per work day. So that is roughly $10 per week, or $40 per month. As much as I pay for my ISP subscription at home. I pay less than 1/10 of that for a hosted e-mail solution.

If I were into personal blogging, I would prefer to pay a small amount like I do for e-mail, and not bother my friends (my audience) with ads. Is the problem that everyone dreams they will become a famous author and earn an livable income from their blogs? It strikes me as a multi-level marketing scam, convincing millions of users they will all climb the ladder to Internet success, when mostly they are crushed at the bottom. The people with the viable business plan are the ones channeling ad revenue in bulk at the top of the pyramid.

Re:Not technologies that will fail

[kjart]

All you need with a federated service like identi.ca is a small percentage

It's odd you bring up identi.ca, since the company behind them, Control Yourself, Inc would probably disagree with you about not needing a revenue stream - or at least, their investors would.

Re:Not technologies that will fail

[stoolpigeon]

It's not odd at all. I'm sure the company and their investors would like to make money this way. Maybe they will, maybe they wont. The point is that isn't necessary to the survival of the technology and if they go under, it wont stop people from using the product.

Re:Not technologies that will fail

[TapeCutter]

Not picking on you personaly but this whole thread is a confusion between revenue, costs and profit. A web site has costs, period. You have three choices.

1. You eat the costs so everyone has a "free" service. (generous and passionate)
2. You create revenue to balance the costs so everyone has a "free" service. (wise and passionate)
3. You create revenue to exceed the costs, the service puts bread on your table. (business, passion is often fake)
The most common way to eat the costs is through donations.

stuff that will fail in 2009

[Janek Kozicki]

This kind of news got pretty popular lately. There was at least one similar story past week. And it's logical (and boring too). Of course some random stuff will fail in 2009, because we have a global recession. Now every kind of journalists are trying to make predictions, which is like playing lotto (for those journalists who are stupid and can't really make an indepth analysis, which is way too difficult, anyway). Then in 2010 it will turn out that some random journalist was right, and he will win the prize "I was right!". Meh.

Re:stuff that will fail in 2009

[AmberBlackCat]

I think that's because it's easier to figure out what doesn't work, than it is to figure out what does work. It's like trying to pick which runner will lose the race instead of picking the winner. If you have 10 runners, you have a 90% chance of picking a loser and a 10% chance of picking a winner.

Re:stuff that will fail in 2009

[cferthorney]

Every year people predict things, it's almost the journalists version of New Year Resolutions. Predict something and see if you are right. If you are then as you say you get to say "I was right" but if you are wrong you conveniently forget you ever wrote said article and rely on Google cache cleaning itself up.

The world will be a different place after this recession - and so will the web. I don't think however we should all update our microblogs saying "The end of Web 2.0 is nigh" just yet.

They forgot Sirius-XM satellite

[commodore64_love]

They are only about two months away from following Circuit City's path, due to more-and-more people streaming their radio off the net or off their cellphones, instead of satellite.

Re:They forgot Sirius-XM satellite

[squiggleslash]

For the satellite service, Sirius/XM's main market are car drivers. Streaming radio isn't going to have much of an impact, nor are cellphones with radios built into them. It's also worth noting that most Sirius subscribers I know are attracted in large part because of Sirius's own streaming service. They listen to the satellite in the car, and then listen to the same Sirius-exclusive stations via streaming from their computers at work.

It's possible that in five years, ubiquitous LTE coverage will mean streaming radio to cars will suddenly start to become viable, but XM/Sirius has an opportunity to carve out a niche in the meantime, and at that point Sirius/XM will become more of a seller of streaming services than a satellite operator.

While they're not doing well, there's no reason to believe that they have an unviable business model. As long as they provide a portal to subscription funded ad-free content, they're going to attract a market. A move from satellite based distribution to streaming will probably end up helping them more than hindering them, as they'll no longer need to fund the distribution.

Adblock

[js_sebastian]

So my choices are pay money and host a server or see a little AD to have some other company do all the work for me? I think it's easier for me to have a little AD on the side of the page when I log into Twitter. Easier and free.

Or use adblock, and wait for twitter,facebook and Co. to go bankrupt when enough people join you... Then distributed, open alternatives will be the only option...

Re:test

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope that articles over multiple pages just for advert-hits dies a death in 2009, along with webmasters who practice this.

Anyway, 1 page version of the article:
http://www.internetevolution.com/document.asp?doc_id=169817&print=yes