back to article Google dangles needle over Web Bubble 2.0

Back in the bad ol' days of Microsoft's dominance, many a venture capitalist was scared off from an investment because of the looming possibility that Microsoft might enter the startup's market. But as the startup landscape shifted to web-oriented technology, startups and the VCs who love them appear to have forgotten to …


This topic is closed for new posts.

One has to wonder. . .

One has to wonder whether this delusion-based penchant for investing in "Web 2.0" is starving other enterprises, in *all* areas of the world-wide economy, of funds. There was a time when people would invest in new modes of transportation, or industrial processes, or basic and applied scientific research. Sadly, too much of the world's investment funds and human intelligence seems to be devoted to "serving the perfect ad" to as many people as possible.

It's really sickening.


VC's know money, not innovation

Just like the dotcom bubble, VCs throw money at technology they don't understand. This pursuit of the quick buck will only worsen the current global economy. It should be mandatory to neuter investment brokers before they are let loose on thew world.



While Microsoft put startups out of business, Google and Co. buy startups out of business.

What utter bullshit. Maybe this guy needs to learn how to use a f**king search engine. These are all on the 1st page of results! Hell MS DOS was a buyout!

"Microsoft purchased Seattle startup WebFives,"

"Microsoft Wednesday bought Israeli startup YaData"

"Microsoft Corp. has acquired systems management vendor Opalis Software

"Microsoft has just announced the acquisition of AVIcode"

"Microsoft Buys Search Start-Up Powerset"

"Microsoft has inked a deal to acquire Komoku"

"Microsoft buys Israeli startup Gteko"

Silver badge

And Google sets up competing services (Google+). But,

If Google -or- Microsoft buys startup companies that are doing things that Google or Microsoft wants to do, isn't that what a venture capitalist wants to have happen, just as much as an IPO? VC invests money in company which may or may not eventually do something useful; Googrosoft buys company; VC takes Googrosoft's cash. VCs are specifically just in it for the money.

Now, hiring the people instead of buying the company might be cheaper, so the startup needs to have non-compete clauses in employee or partner contracts.


When we refer to the past, what do we mean?

There's a whole lot of past-tense going on in reference to Microsoft there. MS have changed a little recently (not enough, of course) and are taking a slightly different approach to the MS of 5, 10 years ago... but the key thing is their influence is vastly overshadowed by Google.

Maybe you need to stop f**king frothing at the mouth. Honestly, I'm startled you didn't do a wholesale search and replace to change 'soft' to '$shaft' in your post.


No bogeyman?

Patent trolls?

Anonymous Coward

There is a bubble of sorts

And I suspect the bubble is Google itself. You see, using the profitable bits of a business to create new businesses, breaking into new markets by initially giving the product away is a long established competitive move for market entry. And Google does this extremely well, to the extent that it is damaging to the market.

I think that it often non longer makes any sense to fund and implement a bright idea, out of fear that the Chocolate factory will simply copy it. Ultimately, I think we'll this style competition being regulated which in itself can be damaging. We need a correction, but I don't know where that correction comes from......


Insert witticism here.

I have been saying something similar for a while now, Web 2.0 or the internet with more adverts, rounded edges and pastel colours for the non web designer, is pretty much the tip of the pustule on the digital penis. VC's throwing money into the next big thing that is only two days away from being the next big flop is harming technology sectors that are of real benefit.

For example VC has two pitches in a day, The first thing the VC dose in the morning it check his twitter and facebonk accounts and then goes to work, the first meeting is with a small start up looking for capital for a new technology that could make oh let's say Micro Hydrogen fuel cells a reality that could power a laptop for 5 years without recharging that only weigh 2Oz (outlandish I know but bare with me please). The second is with a small web design shop that has a technology that integrates twitter and facebook to the Google maps API with the calendar on your phone and GPS that allows you to locate friends and synchronise your bowl movements with friends, that will also offer target advertising depending on the heat of the last kebab you consumed and the best deal for chilled wet wipes to sooth your ravaged posterior.

Given all the hype Facebook, Twitter and Google+ has received do you really think he would invest in the useful technology or the one that is retarded fits only a small demographic but has the all important Facebook / Twitter attachment.

Answer – He would chose the chilled arse soother, nice quick return because they are only interested in money.

I'll get me coat….

This topic is closed for new posts.


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017