Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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?
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
#
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
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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