Comments on: The Web 2.0 Myth http://alsop-louie.com/entrepreneurs/the-web-20-myth/ The Art and Science of Entrepreneurs Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:21:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5 by: Francis Fischbach http://alsop-louie.com/entrepreneurs/the-web-20-myth/#comment-156 Mon, 09 Apr 2007 23:21:17 +0000 http://alsop-louie.com/entrepreneurs/the-web-20-myth/#comment-156 I completely agree with your comment about teams of startups trying to build a company from a feature technology. However, I find it offensive to categorize the experience levels of entrepreneurs by age. There are plenty of forty year old engineers that are "young" (first time) entrepreneurs. Instead of focusing on the negative and naive aspects of the presentations, you might consider pointing your readers to the FAQ page on your website. "We care a whole lot more about customers than service providers, incumbents, pundits, journalists, and anyone else involved in supporting the evolution of new companies." I believe your advice to entrepreneurs is to substantiate their value with customers before they present for investment. Can you really blame entrepreneurs for the false dreams of building something cool and flipping it for a nice tidy sum? Especially when you have companies like Myspace and Youtube being acquired for $525m and $1.65B... Honestly Gilman, these might not be the Yahoo's or Google's of the world but you would not be complaining if you had either of these companies in your portfolio. How do you define entrepreneur? I personally would not define the founders of Yahoo and Google as entrepreneurs. They are inventors. The entrepreneurs are the gentlemen in blue blazers at KP and Sequoia. How many companies have the Yahoo and Google founders started? One, and they will probably run these companies until retirement. Also, if I recall, these two world changing companies were founded by four youngsters who were still in school and under twenty-seven years of age. To me examples of entrepreneurs include: Tony Hsieh now CEO of Zappos, Bill Trenchard CEO of LiveOps, and Philip J. Kaplan former CEO of AdBrite. All of which have tried, failed, and or succeeded more than once. I completely agree with your comment about teams of startups trying to build a company from a feature technology. However, I find it offensive to categorize the experience levels of entrepreneurs by age. There are plenty of forty year old engineers that are “young” (first time) entrepreneurs. Instead of focusing on the negative and naive aspects of the presentations, you might consider pointing your readers to the FAQ page on your website. “We care a whole lot more about customers than service providers, incumbents, pundits, journalists, and anyone else involved in supporting the evolution of new companies.” I believe your advice to entrepreneurs is to substantiate their value with customers before they present for investment.

Can you really blame entrepreneurs for the false dreams of building something cool and flipping it for a nice tidy sum? Especially when you have companies like Myspace and Youtube being acquired for $525m and $1.65B… Honestly Gilman, these might not be the Yahoo’s or Google’s of the world but you would not be complaining if you had either of these companies in your portfolio.

How do you define entrepreneur? I personally would not define the founders of Yahoo and Google as entrepreneurs. They are inventors. The entrepreneurs are the gentlemen in blue blazers at KP and Sequoia. How many companies have the Yahoo and Google founders started? One, and they will probably run these companies until retirement. Also, if I recall, these two world changing companies were founded by four youngsters who were still in school and under twenty-seven years of age. To me examples of entrepreneurs include: Tony Hsieh now CEO of Zappos, Bill Trenchard CEO of LiveOps, and Philip J. Kaplan former CEO of AdBrite. All of which have tried, failed, and or succeeded more than once.

]]> by: Samwise http://alsop-louie.com/entrepreneurs/the-web-20-myth/#comment-58 Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:41:40 +0000 http://alsop-louie.com/entrepreneurs/the-web-20-myth/#comment-58 I agree with this post 100% However Neal does have a point: Very often a good, even grand business idea starts out very modest and later (through luck or divine intervention... whatever you wanna call it) became the next big thing. So the driving force is not "grand idea", but a persistent passion for whatever you want to do. An interesting idea was presented here and particularly strikes a chord with me: "When someone else controls the platform, someone else controls the market — and the exit." That is true - In fact I would contend that it is ALWAYS true in this day and age. As technology and our world becomes more layered and interconnected, tt is almost impossible to come out with a radically different idea with no external dependency. Simply put, no matter how radically and different your idea is - there will always be an incumbent that is in a better position to do it better then you - If they are smart enough and nimble enough to act on it - You're only a market distrupter if the market is dominated by a bunch of big, sluggish, risk-adverse players. Here is an idea I've been toying with for a while... with all the fight going on between RIAA and the way market is going in the music industry... why isn't there a "music 2.0" wave? I agree with this post 100% However Neal does have a point: Very often a good, even grand business idea starts out very modest and later (through luck or divine intervention… whatever you wanna call it) became the next big thing. So the driving force is not “grand idea”, but a persistent passion for whatever you want to do.

An interesting idea was presented here and particularly strikes a chord with me: “When someone else controls the platform, someone else controls the market — and the exit.”

That is true - In fact I would contend that it is ALWAYS true in this day and age. As technology and our world becomes more layered and interconnected, tt is almost impossible to come out with a radically different idea with no external dependency. Simply put, no matter how radically and different your idea is - there will always be an incumbent that is in a better position to do it better then you - If they are smart enough and nimble enough to act on it - You’re only a market distrupter if the market is dominated by a bunch of big, sluggish, risk-adverse players.

Here is an idea I’ve been toying with for a while… with all the fight going on between RIAA and the way market is going in the music industry… why isn’t there a “music 2.0″ wave?

]]> by: Chrisopher Carey http://alsop-louie.com/entrepreneurs/the-web-20-myth/#comment-35 Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:58:22 +0000 http://alsop-louie.com/entrepreneurs/the-web-20-myth/#comment-35 What a releif to read this post! I'm curious to see what happens to not only all these Web 2.0 start-up but also much of the open source companies after a couple of years passes. In my experience successful entrepreneurs require an unusual amount of endurance, and my guess is many of these companies will go by the way-side as their owners get older, get bored, and start to wan't to earn money by providing value. On the other hand, if Sequoia Capital wants to take a look at my on-demand e-commerce platform please call an ask for Chris! What a releif to read this post! I’m curious to see what happens to not only all these Web 2.0 start-up but also much of the open source companies after a couple of years passes. In my experience successful entrepreneurs require an unusual amount of endurance, and my guess is many of these companies will go by the way-side as their owners get older, get bored, and start to wan’t to earn money by providing value.

On the other hand, if Sequoia Capital wants to take a look at my on-demand e-commerce platform please call an ask for Chris!

]]> by: Chris Nystrom http://alsop-louie.com/entrepreneurs/the-web-20-myth/#comment-34 Wed, 21 Feb 2007 00:11:38 +0000 http://alsop-louie.com/entrepreneurs/the-web-20-myth/#comment-34 "They do not want to be bought by Google or Yahoo!, they want to be the next Google or Yahoo!" - Amen! Great post. “They do not want to be bought by Google or Yahoo!, they want to be the next Google or Yahoo!” - Amen!

Great post.

]]> by: jim forbes http://alsop-louie.com/entrepreneurs/the-web-20-myth/#comment-32 Tue, 20 Feb 2007 03:42:28 +0000 http://alsop-louie.com/entrepreneurs/the-web-20-myth/#comment-32 I get so tired of hearing some nascent Web 2.0 new biz developer touting their mashup as " the next big thing" Truth bed told of the 20 or so mashups I've seen, the only ones that make any sense are verticals aimed at underserved, non-glamorous, markets. The big problem I've n otice is that everyone thinks the successses and gold grabs of the early 1990's and 1980's are repeatable. Of course, thast isn't really the case since the market and the user community are much more sophisticated today than they were 10 or 20 years ago. What I think is lacking in the Valley today is leadership.The Biz schools teach how to get tickets for the big rides, not how to lead people or companies to the next level. Oh and just attending some leadership-titled event doesn't make onea true leader. Leadership is earned, it's not granted or minted at a conference center. Great post, by the way. Jim Forbes ( from my agrarian mountaintop home in rural San Diego County) I get so tired of hearing some nascent Web 2.0 new biz developer touting their mashup as ” the next big thing” Truth bed told of the 20 or so mashups I’ve seen, the only ones that make any sense are verticals aimed at underserved, non-glamorous, markets. The big problem I’ve n otice is that everyone thinks the successses and gold grabs of the early 1990’s and 1980’s are repeatable. Of course, thast isn’t really the case since the market and the user community are much more sophisticated today than they were 10 or 20 years ago.
What I think is lacking in the Valley today is leadership.The Biz schools teach how to get tickets for the big rides, not how to lead people or companies to the next level. Oh and just attending some leadership-titled event doesn’t make onea true leader. Leadership is earned, it’s not granted or minted at a conference center.
Great post, by the way.

Jim Forbes ( from my agrarian mountaintop home in rural San Diego County)

]]> by: Marc’s Voice » Blog Archive » Chewing thru 4k posts and counting http://alsop-louie.com/entrepreneurs/the-web-20-myth/#comment-31 Mon, 19 Feb 2007 07:37:09 +0000 http://alsop-louie.com/entrepreneurs/the-web-20-myth/#comment-31 [...] Great to see Gilman Louie (Stewert Alsop’s partner in a new boutique fund) blogging about the Web 2.0 Myth. [...] […] Great to see Gilman Louie (Stewert Alsop’s partner in a new boutique fund) blogging about the Web 2.0 Myth. […]

]]> by: Josh Kim dot Org » Confusing Features for a Company http://alsop-louie.com/entrepreneurs/the-web-20-myth/#comment-28 Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:10:25 +0000 http://alsop-louie.com/entrepreneurs/the-web-20-myth/#comment-28 [...] The Web 2.0 Myth [...] […] The Web 2.0 Myth […]

]]> by: pwb http://alsop-louie.com/entrepreneurs/the-web-20-myth/#comment-27 Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:48:01 +0000 http://alsop-louie.com/entrepreneurs/the-web-20-myth/#comment-27 I agree that a feature does not make a company but I think the pursuit of creating these features is legitimiate but just requires a different mechanism...perhaps, dare I say, an incubator. obvious.com? I agree that a feature does not make a company but I think the pursuit of creating these features is legitimiate but just requires a different mechanism…perhaps, dare I say, an incubator. obvious.com?

]]> by: Neal http://alsop-louie.com/entrepreneurs/the-web-20-myth/#comment-24 Thu, 15 Feb 2007 02:23:12 +0000 http://alsop-louie.com/entrepreneurs/the-web-20-myth/#comment-24 Interesting perspective. As one of the web 2.0 entrepreneurs here let me chime in: 1) Your comment about business school kids launching web 2.0 company and getting funding is incorrect. All the Valley startups that have gotten some sorrt of traction that I know of save Meebo which was founded by Stanford GSB dropout are companies founded by engineers or ex-Yahoo, Intuit, PayPal, etc. folks. Either they are engineers or if they have business backgrounds then they spent some time in business roles. 2) Confusing feature for a company is an interesting concept cos everything can be construed into a feature. Just this past month Om Malik wrote a post about social networks being features. Going for long shot ideas or thinking about the next Google is cool and sexy but let me tell you those are few and far in between. Instead, companies like MyBlogLog, Jumpcut etc. which are features are getting the traction to exist as part of people's internet life. Facebook was just a directory of students with their profiles. But given enough time it morphed from a feature to a real company - a utility without which students cant imagine their lives anymore. So what you see as a feature could morph into something substantial. 3) Your entire perspective is spoken from a VC point of view. Its definitely not in line with an entrepreneurs. Imagine telling a first time entrepreneur that a $30 million offer is not enough cos you are just a feature. Instead, you need to think BIG and go for the $2 billion exit. Of course, Jonathan Abraham is a great example of how he missed the boat on making money out of Friendster. I would give fellow entrepreneurs another perspective - if this is your first time in launching a company a $10-30 million dollar exit in a couple of years is not bad. Now if you are one of the YouTube or PayPal founders, you would obviously not be going for that paltry exit instead you will be thinking of Changing the World. Heres my 2 cents. Interesting perspective. As one of the web 2.0 entrepreneurs here let me chime in:

1) Your comment about business school kids launching web 2.0 company and getting funding is incorrect. All the Valley startups that have gotten some sorrt of traction that I know of save Meebo which was founded by Stanford GSB dropout are companies founded by engineers or ex-Yahoo, Intuit, PayPal, etc. folks. Either they are engineers or if they have business backgrounds then they spent some time in business roles.

2) Confusing feature for a company is an interesting concept cos everything can be construed into a feature. Just this past month Om Malik wrote a post about social networks being features. Going for long shot ideas or thinking about the next Google is cool and sexy but let me tell you those are few and far in between. Instead, companies like MyBlogLog, Jumpcut etc. which are features are getting the traction to exist as part of people’s internet life. Facebook was just a directory of students with their profiles. But given enough time it morphed from a feature to a real company - a utility without which students cant imagine their lives anymore. So what you see as a feature could morph into something substantial.

3) Your entire perspective is spoken from a VC point of view. Its definitely not in line with an entrepreneurs. Imagine telling a first time entrepreneur that a $30 million offer is not enough cos you are just a feature. Instead, you need to think BIG and go for the $2 billion exit. Of course, Jonathan Abraham is a great example of how he missed the boat on making money out of Friendster. I would give fellow entrepreneurs another perspective - if this is your first time in launching a company a $10-30 million dollar exit in a couple of years is not bad. Now if you are one of the YouTube or PayPal founders, you would obviously not be going for that paltry exit instead you will be thinking of Changing the World.

Heres my 2 cents.

]]> by: Lance Smith http://alsop-louie.com/entrepreneurs/the-web-20-myth/#comment-23 Wed, 14 Feb 2007 23:36:46 +0000 http://alsop-louie.com/entrepreneurs/the-web-20-myth/#comment-23 Great post! Great perspective. To add, I am sure there were more then 1500 startups out there as well, these are just the ones that we are aware of. I imagine the 'deal flow' is near an all time high right now for something fitting the loose 'web 2.0' definition. I thus can only imagine how much fun it must be to weed through all the paper that crosses in front of you guys! Again, great post, thanks for the view from that side of things. Great post! Great perspective. To add, I am sure there were more then 1500 startups out there as well, these are just the ones that we are aware of.

I imagine the ‘deal flow’ is near an all time high right now for something fitting the loose ‘web 2.0′ definition.

I thus can only imagine how much fun it must be to weed through all the paper that crosses in front of you guys!

Again, great post, thanks for the view from that side of things.

]]>