Andrew Chen Archives

Subscribe · Featured · Recent · The Cold Start Problem 📘
Dear readers, I have moved to Substack and I will be writing here from now on:
In the meantime, I will leave up for posterity. Enjoy!

Only nerds ask: “Is the Web 2.0 bubble collapsing?”

There’s been some conversation recently on Web 2.0 as a bubble, and whether or not it’s going to pop in 2007. Here’s the coverage from Techcrunch, and here’s one on Bubble 2.0 from the WSJ. It seems to be driven by the entire “Make your 2007 predictions” meme.

Related to this topic, I’ve had a couple folks ask me what kind of company I’m looking to start – they ask, “Are you thinking of something in the Web 2.0 area?” usually followed by “… because that’s really crowded.”

Web 2 point what?
Here’s my take on the topic: Classifying all the Internet companies created in the last year or two as “Web 2.0” is too simplistic, and thus, asking about trends within Web 2.0 is the wrong question to ask. Considering that people still disagree on what the Web 2.0 term means, and how vague and all-encompassing it seems to be, it’s pretty funny to think you could say anything about all the companies under that umbrella.

So instead, the questions should be about what the company does for customer, industry the startups are in, how they make their money, and what limitations exist for scaling up. The questions should be about what problems they are trying to solve, not the technology that supports their websites. Zillow is not a Web 2.0 real estate website that incorporates AJAX and mapping. Instead, think of it as a tool that lets people look up the value of houses before they’re going to sell or buy, and/or fantasize about where they’d want to live. That’s the change in perspective I’m talking about.

What kinds of areas might be in trouble?
So if we take this perspective, one might still ask what customer problems are overfunded and bubble-like. I might speculate that there are quite a few out there, but there are also huge untapped markets that present large opportunities.

From this lens, I might advance that the new “media sharing” startups – ones that let you post pictures, videos, etc. – are in trouble unless they are already big players. There are lots of companies, undifferentiated technology, and winner-take-all dynamics. Furthermore, the advertising/monetization of these sites is really difficult, and as the ad networks and advertisers get smarter about conversions, their revenues may fall.

I’m sure you could theorize the same thing about lots of “blogging features” that are coming out as whole companies, when they are instead very small add-ons to existing blogging infrastructure targeted at a small, tech-savvy audience. Another soft spot consists of social networking sites, some of which are too targeted and niche, and others which are too generic and incapable of building critical mass.

Even so, these categories will have tremendous innovation in the next couple years – I just wouldn’t want to be someone starting a company in there ;-)

But would I say the same thing about industries that NEED innovation, like real estate, health, personal finance, education, and other huge consumer industries? No. I think these industries are still mostly untouched by new technologies, and deserve to be examined closely by entrepreneurs with their new Web 2.0 technology toolkits.

We should chance our focus to people, not technology
The key is to think about the problems people are facing, not the tools we use to solve them. This will shift the conversation away from Web 2.0 and towards the needs of customers.

We, as technologists, have a deep toolkit of techniques to solve peoples’ problems. We know that AJAX can make richer interfaces, when those interfaces are relevant. We know that social features can be very powerful, when the problem demands it. And we know that with the proliferation of digital cameras and broadband, the Internet’s as much about video as text.

But at the same time, by broadly generalizing across Web 2.0 is just not smart enough to capture the wildly different dynamics within each industry. So let’s start segmenting Web 2.0 companies based on target audience and application, not technology platform.

UPDATE: I missed this
comprehensive coverage of Web 2.0 carnage
blogged at VentureBeat.

PS. Get new updates/analysis on tech and startups

I write a high-quality, weekly newsletter covering what's happening in Silicon Valley, focused on startups, marketing, and mobile.

Views expressed in “content” (including posts, podcasts, videos) linked on this website or posted in social media and other platforms (collectively, “content distribution outlets”) are my own and are not the views of AH Capital Management, L.L.C. (“a16z”) or its respective affiliates. AH Capital Management is an investment adviser registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Registration as an investment adviser does not imply any special skill or training. The posts are not directed to any investors or potential investors, and do not constitute an offer to sell -- or a solicitation of an offer to buy -- any securities, and may not be used or relied upon in evaluating the merits of any investment.

The content should not be construed as or relied upon in any manner as investment, legal, tax, or other advice. You should consult your own advisers as to legal, business, tax, and other related matters concerning any investment. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects and/or opinions expressed in these materials are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others. Any charts provided here are for informational purposes only, and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Certain information contained in here has been obtained from third-party sources. While taken from sources believed to be reliable, I have not independently verified such information and makes no representations about the enduring accuracy of the information or its appropriateness for a given situation. The content speaks only as of the date indicated.

Under no circumstances should any posts or other information provided on this website -- or on associated content distribution outlets -- be construed as an offer soliciting the purchase or sale of any security or interest in any pooled investment vehicle sponsored, discussed, or mentioned by a16z personnel. Nor should it be construed as an offer to provide investment advisory services; an offer to invest in an a16z-managed pooled investment vehicle will be made separately and only by means of the confidential offering documents of the specific pooled investment vehicles -- which should be read in their entirety, and only to those who, among other requirements, meet certain qualifications under federal securities laws. Such investors, defined as accredited investors and qualified purchasers, are generally deemed capable of evaluating the merits and risks of prospective investments and financial matters. There can be no assurances that a16z’s investment objectives will be achieved or investment strategies will be successful. Any investment in a vehicle managed by a16z involves a high degree of risk including the risk that the entire amount invested is lost. Any investments or portfolio companies mentioned, referred to, or described are not representative of all investments in vehicles managed by a16z and there can be no assurance that the investments will be profitable or that other investments made in the future will have similar characteristics or results. A list of investments made by funds managed by a16z is available at Excluded from this list are investments for which the issuer has not provided permission for a16z to disclose publicly as well as unannounced investments in publicly traded digital assets. Past results of Andreessen Horowitz’s investments, pooled investment vehicles, or investment strategies are not necessarily indicative of future results. Please see for additional important information.