back
15 comments
What really killed Netscape was Microsoft — but if you're looking for a real example of the web 1.0 bubble you can look at theGlobe.com (which by the way was a social media website). My guess is that some of these companies will crash and burn, but somewhere in that class could be the next Google.
No, that's simply not true. Netscape's strategy was always to make money from its server products, I quote Jim Clark "I'm building printing presses, but first I've got to teach people to read" - that's why they gave away the browser, to build a market for servers.

What killed Netscape is that version 3 of their server was a dog, and everyone switched to Apache or Zeus. I was there.

I thought Netscape used to charge for the browser - it was $35 if I recall correctly. Hence, MS was plotting to cut off their 'air supply' by giving away IE, removing NS's source of revenue.
They charged people who would want support, it was always free to people who didn't need/want it.

My employer at the time spent 6-figures at a time on Netscape server products, for ourselves and our clients, we must have spent millions with them. Then version 3 came out and we either stuck to 2 or moved off Netscape platform entirely. And that was a big deal, since we had written loads of NSAPI code! But that's what killed Netscape.

I agree, though the author says others may not may who Netscape was, it doesn't seem the author has a clear idea. Netscape wasn't the classic bubble company at all.
He wasn't saying Netscape (or LinkedIn was a bubble companies. Rather, looking back, it is simply a marker signifying the beginning of the inflation of the bubble.
Exactly, LinkedIn doesn't have a competitor that can position itself to scoop its customers out from underneath its very nose.
If I worked at LinkedIn, I would spend a lot of time thinking about what to do if Facebook ever decides that you can have both "friends" and "business contacts."
(disclosure: I used to work at LinkedIn and at Google, though not on Orkut)

I think Orkut provided a strong datapoint for your question. They supported a professional and personal profile when they launched, and the overall finding was that a single site supporting social + professional networks is a turn-off because most people want to keep those networks separate (since many of your friends have no interest in your resume, and since you don't want your boss to see your pictures at some party).

One potential issues is that there are really 3 groups of people: friends, coworkers, and "both". For each posting, photo, action, etc, you want one of the three groups to see it. That becomes a hassle compared to just keeping friends and coworkers in separate social networks (one pitfall, though, is that using two social networks makes it hard to send messages to friends and coworkers without having to write the message twice).

That said, Facebook has a ton of smart people, so maybe that can figure out something that Google could not.

One last thing: I think part of the perceived value of LinkedIn is that they have not deviated significantly from their goal of being The professional network. I remember it took them a long time to even add profile photos, because there was a debate about whether those were more "professional" or "fun". I think it would be as hard for FB to become a professional network as it would for LinkedIn to become a social network (while not losing its professional member base)

Recall, that at the time of the Netscape IPO (1995), Netscape and even the Internet was relatively unknown by most non-technical people, thus the ensuing hype and gold-rush mentality. This time around, the Internet and social media is in the mainstream. Millions of LinkedIn and Facebook users are fully aware of the capabilities and limitations. There is clearly room to grow and LI has some excellent opportunities, but I don't think the same sense of excitement and awe exists around the LinkedIn IPO as there was for Netscape.
While "social" is sort of mainstream (in the sense that everyone and their mother is on Facebook), there's hardly any money in it. The vast majority of Internet users spend their time doing three things on the web: Facebook, e-mail, and time wasters like games & YouTube.

So while the userbase is certainly very large, the revenue potential is very limited outside of those core activities.

The hype and gold rush mentality is still abound, but this time not about the internet itself, but about (social) applications of it and how much potential it still has to change our lives. Which is completely true, so this hype is not without fundamentals, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the current crop of companies will profit from it.
> My answer is firmly standing on "maybe."

What does it mean to be firmly on "maybe"?

Based on my experience of law school, it means that you have excellent potential as a lawyer.
The best idea that came out of something like TechCrunch Disrupt is an "X of Y" (AirBnb of cars). A ton of people struggled to come up with Internet companies and that's the best we can do?

To me, that's a clear sign of solutions looking for problems. In other words, "there's gold in them hills".