Too much good stuff?

First off, I am aborting my campaign to rename the current wave of computing something other than "Web 2.0. " It is simply too late.  However, I will follow my friend Andy Ruff's lead and shorten it to Web 2 from time to time. I'm going to focus more on what's imprtant about this new wave that is upon us.

I've been in the tech startup sector since just after the time when the wheel was was released. Had I gotten here a bit sooner, I swear you'd know the developer's name.

All that aside I am amazed at what is going on right now. In over 25 years, I have never seen more great stuff from more companies than right now.  I have met great teams who speak transparently. At least in this sector of the world, the language of corpspeak is as unhip as the 1940s language of bebop.

The outcome of the Web 2 wave is bigger and more signficant than the disruption of a few aging incumbent companies.  It is the changing of our global society. It is the fulfillment of the technology visionaries of the late 70s and early 80s who began talking about changing the way we work, play,communicate and learn long before the technolog could really fulfll the promise.

In the past several weeks, I have had more meetings regarding new companies and technologie than I sometimes have had in a full year.  I've seen amazing things that will happen to mobile devices, digital photos, storage.  I'm working with a company called Sharpcast who will makewhether you are online or off irrelevant .  I've seen ways to build communities that are so potent that, as Charlene Li says, geography becomes irrelevant and perhaps, the governments that stake them out become less important themselves.

Amazingly, in recent months, I've seen more than 20 companies, maybe 30.  I have not seen a single bad idea.  I have not seen two ideas that overlap.  I have not seen a team that I considered smarmy.  I did not meet a CEO who's ego was larger than Texas. These are very surprising times

But then, in that I see a problem, and one that may not be easily solvable. We, the customers, do not have the time to learn and use all this great new stuff coming so quickly and cheaply to market. We to not have the bandwidth to get our brains around all the stuff that's coming into being at the pace of popcorn in a microwave oven. We don't have the dollars to support all these good things coming to life. We don't place enough advertisements to support them, and we don't have enough $1.99s per month to pay for all the great new subscription-based services.

Kids, there's just too much candy in the store. How do we choose?

Surplus companies have happened before.  There were once over 1000 application software companies; over 100 PC makers. Don't get me started on the excess offerings of the DotCom Era. Ask any MBA and they will tell you about eras of growth followed by consolidations, then harvests.  These are normal business cycles and they go about as far bac as does the wheel.

But this is different. Almost all these companies have technology that's unique, valuable and defensible. These technologies deserve to endure. Hstory says very few will.

If history is redundant, then about a year or two from now, a whole mess of perfectly promising companies wither on the vine. Others consolidate.  Nearly all the survivors of past technology waves acquire the most promising new companies and te founders of the others go off and try again, and perhaps again.

That's what's previously happened, but it's different this time.  Web 2 has made it cheaper to come to market. The costs of marketing, recruiting, service, support, distribution, packaging have all been reduced or eliminated, small companies can last a lot longer than they previously could.  They can become global companies from a home office. They can have ten employees located in five countries and keep playing. Big companies still have the power of money and brand, and that is formidable, but perhaps less formidable than ever before.

How will this new wave of technology come out? I have not a clue.

Stay tuned.

Comments

[Jack Krupansky]

Urgent warning: If you shorten your usage to "Web 2", searches in Google, et al for "Web 2.0" won't find you. Or, maybe you want that? Your choice.

-- Jack Krupansky

[Dennis Howlett]

"That's what's previously happened, but it's different this time. " This is really interesting. I had a conversation with Charlie Bess yesterday of EDS. He said: 'history says...' and then talked about the business cycle you describe. I ask the question: If the rules for setting up and at least getting some traction have changed - and I believe they really, really have - then who's to say the consolidation cycle will work the same way as in the past? Is it inevitable?

[Michael]

Great observations Shel. My clients are experiencing the challenges you're describing-- they don't have time to evaluate the new opportunities, prioritize and adopt. What new technology do they integrate into their business first? I'm spending a lot of time with them on these questions...and having a blast.

[Hugh MacLeod]

I remember when people were trying to rename "blog" as well. "Cyber Journals" or whatever.

I like "Web 2.0". Intellectually dubious, sure, but we already know that.

[Canadian Headhunter]

You said you were going to stop trying to change the name and then change it anyway. But you were right, it's too late. And it's not a bad name anyway. At least, I like it and I'm fussy.