Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Technologies To Watch Fail In 2009

Posted by Soulskill on from the let's-hope-asteroid-defense-isn't-on-the-list dept.

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.'"

21 of 108 comments (clear)

  1. Not technologies that will fail by stoolpigeon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:Not technologies that will fail by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?

      While I agree with your sentiment, I don't see the use of microblogs such as twitter. Regular blogs attract me as a possible source of information and well written information from someone more informed than a journalist at times.

      All I see in microblogs is the internet version of that person calling home from the supermarket asking their insignificant other whether to get 1% or skim milk and other such nonsense.

      Which isn't to say whether it has any real social value or not will make it fail as a business... it's just that I don't think it will really matter.

    2. Re:Not technologies that will fail by stoolpigeon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Right now on twitter I'm following @bashcookbook and I get a bash tip every day. I also follow @thaumatrope and read little 140 character slivers of science fiction stories. @Outshine calls theirs prose poetry and it is all with a speculative fiction type spin. @oreillymedia keeps me up to date on oreilly stuff including conferences, web casts, new books and things they have on-line like blog posts and interviews.
       
      This may not be your cup of tea - but for a lot of people it is a very popular way to receive and share information. The other people I follow are individuals who are pretty well known (Wil Wheaton, Jon Scalzi, Tim O'Reilly, etc.) and I'm interested in things like what they are doing, what they are reading, stuff like that.
       
      Does all that matter? I'm not sure, it all depends on context. But to me personally it matters right now. There is also the fact that now that I have a number of friends who are also on twitter we are able to use it as a way of keeping in touch. Of course we could use instant messaging or email - but we don't. If we need to say something longer we use another method - but throughout the day twitter is usually enough.
       
      Oh - and with the ability to search through all of this - it becomes an index of sorts as many microblog posts point to other places on the web. That's another feature that I believe brings real value. And I know that this is also available in other platforms - but what I've seen happen is that many people tend to microblog much more freely than they will do a regular blog post. So in the end it will get more information out there.
       
      I've been thinking about this a lot in the last few weeks - which may be obvious. I just put in a request to host a project at source forge for a microblogging tool I'd like to build. So there's my bias. I'm pretty excited about what I see as some cool possibilities. Of course not everyone will be on board with this. It may never grow beyond a niche thing. But I remember the first time I was on facebook and thought "What is the point and who is ever going to do this?" Of course now just about everyone I know is on facebook.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    3. Re:Not technologies that will fail by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 4, Funny

      What's really wild is your entire post is the same kind of "microblog" stuff that you just said doesn't matter.

    4. Re:Not technologies that will fail by kjart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    5. Re:Not technologies that will fail by stoolpigeon · · Score: 3, Informative

      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. With open social and the like a lot of other things can work the same way - there is no need for a central authority or revenue generator - everything is distributed. And the costs are low enough out at the end points that their need not be income derived from the activity itself.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    6. Re:Not technologies that will fail by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  2. stuff that will fail in 2009 by Janek+Kozicki · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    #
    #\ @ ? Colonize Mars
    #
    1. Re:stuff that will fail in 2009 by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:stuff that will fail in 2009 by cferthorney · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  3. They forgot Sirius-XM satellite by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:They forgot Sirius-XM satellite by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:They forgot Sirius-XM satellite by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You can't listen to your Cellphone as it streams wireless radio in your car?

      Ok, first thing: "Wireless radio". Think about it.

      Second thing: No. If you're referring to cellphones with radios built in, there's no point: cars already have built-in radios.

      If you're referring to connecting to a streaming radio service using the wireless Internet, the vast majority of cellphones offer no such facility. Even when they do, you're going to have to find a streaming service worth listening to (hey, here's an idea, subscribe to Sirius!) The free streaming services I've seen are generally either rebroadcasts of radio-accessible content (your car already has a radio), or ad-supported music stations (or non-ad supported stations that'll exist fleetingly at best.) You'll also generally have to pay more for your data subscription than the $12 per month Sirius charges for its content.

      The point of Sirius-XM is not "woo! we have satellites!", it's "we have high quality content, you pay for it by subscribing rather than buying advertiser's products". If you're obsessing about how "technologies" are going to make "Sirius-XM" obsolete, then you have no idea what Sirius-XM is and you've ignored the part of my comment where I pointed out Sirius-XM can exist without satellites.

      Or Ipods in your car?

      iPods contain a fixed collection of content that can only be updated when you're at a computer, with items you select in advance. I can't even begin to imagine why you'd bring them up as a Sirius-XM competitor.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  4. Mobile phone targetted advertising by xaxa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    About 6 months ago I signed up to Blyk, a "free" mobile network for 16-25 year olds, which gave subscribers 43 minutes call time and 217 texts free per month (plenty for what I use). It was supported by advertising, every day I'd receive either an MMS or SMS with an advert, typically for clothes and music (that's what my demographic is meant to waste its money on, isn't it? Well, that and booze.)

    Anyway, I haven't had an advert since about Christmas, and yesterday got a text from Blyk saying they were changing the deal to £15/month free credit, which works out as less texts/minutes at their prices (8p per text, 24p/min call). Maybe the business model wasn't quite as good as predicted.

  5. Social news? by the_arrow · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's been a sweet ride, but goodbye Slashdot! See you on the other side!

    --
    / The Arrow
    "How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
    1. Re:Social news? by MarkRose · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually, the death of Slashdot is a blessing in disguise. You see, Slashdot is entirely responsible for the current global economic crises. When a nerd or other smart person first reads this site, he or she is instantly hooked on the discourse with other nerds, even if it's just inane drivel. As more and more nerds get addicted to Slashdot, productive grinds to a halt, causing companies to fail. The happened first in North America with the dotcom crash. As ubiquitous internet access spread around the world, so did Slashdot's productivity sucking force. That is why we're now in a global recession, except for Africa where there's been an on going recession ever since an unfortunately soul laid out a stone and a stick in a /. pattern thousands of years ago. Cowboy Neal is nobody more than a drug runner for the Bilderberger Group who plan to control all the intelligence in the world with their Slashdot drug.

      --
      Be relentless!
  6. Evolve with trends by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In order to survive, many of these sites and companies will just have to do the unthinkable and evolve to keep up with web trends.

    For a good discussion of where the trends could be going, read this article: http://tech.lds.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=371&Itemid=5

  7. The trouble with "targeted advertising" by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Targeted advertising" has real problems. Ads on search results pages are valuable, because they're presented at the point that the user is actively looking for something. Vaguely relevant ads on other pages (the "Google Content Network" comes to mind) are a distraction, and far less valuable. Clicks on such ads are mostly from the 10% of web users who make 50% of the clicks, but don't buy much. Many advertisers have opted out of the Google Content Network (read Search Engine Watch). As we point out, about 36% of Google Content Network advertisers are "bottom-feeders", junk sites with no verifiable business behind them. There's been a slow decline in contextual advertising, and I expect that to continue, and maybe accelerate. Ad-supported sites will feel the squeeze.

    Targeted advertising is effective if the advertiser has the user's buying history. Amazon exploits this successfully; they know exactly what you've bought. But spreading that information around creates privacy problems and loud objections. Merchants aren't keen about letting their competitors know who their best customers are. Payment companies like Visa and PayPay could in theory take that role, but they've been reluctant to do so for fear of regulatory backlash. Payment companies don't currently know what you bought, just who you bought it from. They'd need merchant cooperation to profile their customer base.

    What this may mean is a network effect for broad-based online merchants like Amazon. The bigger they get, the better their targeted advertising becomes. Customers don't object, because they're dealing with one company which legitimately knows what they've bought. Amazon may take up the slack as brick-and-mortar stores go under. In consumer electronics, Circuit City, The Good Guys, CompUSA, etc. have all gone under, and Amazon is taking up much of the slack.

  8. Adblock by js_sebastian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

  9. Re:test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  10. Also look for virtual worlds... by Lordfly · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...to fail in 2009. Not all of them, obviously. Second Life will continue to trundle along (although they've lost about 3000 servers the last few months due to a rather unfortunate series of "gotcha" price increases), mostly due to its user content.

    There's an entire industry of virtual worlds stuff, and almost every single startup in this space does the exact same thing: Take Second Life, remove the user content, add in dancing, music, and social networking embedding. Voila! Instant startup. We're talking dozens of companies doing the exact same thing over and over again.

    So those guys are dead.

    PS3's Home is dead on arrival (no user content). Google Lively's already dead. Any "enterprise" use of virtual worlds is in the research phase (or just using open source alternatives like OpenSim).

    Anyone investing in virtual worlds tech in 2009 is a chump, sorry.

    --
    hookers and grits.