Is Web 2.0 Out of Original Ideas?
by
on April 09, 2008,
The most heated bitchmeme of the past few days appears to be the flap over one of the featured apps on Google App Engine, called HuddleChat. Since removed from the site, Daring Fireball was the first to note that it bore a striking resemblance to 37signals' Campfire.
Google detractors, of course, sided with 37signals, and wondered how Google engineers could have copied something so blatantly. Google fans, however, pointed out that there are only so many ways to build a persistent web chat. One commenter I read (and I am so sorry I lost the link, so if you recognize yourself, please give me a link) pointed out that if your web app is so simple that a couple of Google programmers can throw it together in a couple of days, it might not be that unique to begin with.
That commenter actually described a good portion of Web 2.0. The term “killer” appended to just about every popular trend when a new product is released has grown tiresome. We are seeing “iPhone killers” and “Wikipedia killers” and “Twitter killers” released on a daily basis. Everyone is excited about new releases like Flickr video. Why should I be excited about uploading short video clips to my Flickr account (and only if I've shelled out for Pro) when I've been able to do it on Kodak Gallery for years?
The tech blogosphere, for the most part, appears to have become a long-running series of Short Attention Span theater. Forget what companies and apps and technology were done during Web 1.0; memories have become so truncated that no one seems to remember what was released as recently as six months ago. It's all about the new, and no longer about the good.
If I were launching a start-up tomorrow, the last thing I'd want to see attached to my company is the word “killer.” I wouldn't want to compete against existing companies or rebuild existing apps. I would want to build and release something that hasn't been done, something that's unique and original and doesn't need to lure users away from a near-clone product. And yes, if Google programmers can build it in a weekend, it probably wasn't all that original to begin with.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to profy RSS feed!
major
raj
CopyrightLawSucks 
kwarren84 
Michael Fidler 
Jaime A. Restrepo 
Yolanda
It’s an interesting debate and one that has been energized by this recent “bitchmeme”. But, it’s important to note that there are so many things that still need to be “fixed” using the philosophies and technologies of 2.0. The trouble is that apps/companies continue to fight over solving the same problems in mostly similar ways instead of jumping into other spaces untouched by 2.0.
Interesting discussion and for the main part I agree with you Cyndy. The most welcome “new” stuff will be the stuff that is genuine new and makes the old way of doing kind of the same thing redundant. More of those please…
That said, I also agree that there are currently a lot of Web 2.0 things that, with tweaks, could be done a lot better. New? Not as such, but perhaps done with an eye on how the rest of the world works and not just to impress the blogosphere - which makes them new to everyone else.
Prime amongst things that need tweaking is bringing enough value to users through Web 2.0 apps that they may be prepared to pay to use them. An old fashion notion given that ads can pay for them? Well, how many ventures actually are proving that ads can pay for them?
Ian Hendry
http://www.wecando.biz
@ryan But what will it take to change things? The recession? A whole mess of companies going under?
@Ian Of course they could. It seems, however, that everyone thinks it makes more sense to build their own me-too app to fix it rather than just offer suggestions. Wouldn’t it be better to say “Hey, here’s how you could make this better” and go work for a company that’s already had some success than try a do-over, which will probably end up with some failings of its own?
@Cyndy
An interesting idea. I wonder how much more the telecommunications industry or automotive industry would have progressed if the guys with the new ideas had just worked for the large incumbent rather than set up their own companies to challenge the status quo?
You will never hear me knocking innovation, but I wish that new companies with “cool new stuff” where under a little more pressure to support it with a sound business model and value proposition before being given money to make it live. That way, we might see the new stuff appearing being genuinely valuable in the first place, rather than just providing inspiration for someone else to take it and make it better.
Ian Hendry
http://www.wecando.biz
Ian, that’s a good question. I think there is a much more extreme situation here than there has been in the past simply because of the low point of entry. You can build a Twitter clone in two weeks, but you can’t set up a new automotive company in that amount of time.
Some of that low point of entry may be responsible for the lack of business plans and value propositions. There’s just that much less investment required to begin with.
Cyndy, spot on. In which case, you wonder whether the funds these guys seem able to raise are actually *needed*, in addition to whether they are *worth* it. Perhaps its just an important badge to have in the Web 2.0 world. God help any company that might not need VC partners because it’s actually making money from the word go!
If this is the case then things are broken and the quicker they get fixed (i.e. the quicker the “new conomy” catches up with “old economy” rules), the better for us all perhaps…?
Ian Hendry
http://www.wecando.biz
Ian, do you know what a company’s burn rate is when you have to have a private chef for the cafeteria and a masseuse and at least one foosball table per 24 employees? Of COURSE you need VC.
how about an ebay.com killer? one is coming when you least expect it…