[img src="http://www.big.or.jp/~crane/cocoa/9800_QuartzComp/01_StartQC/sample/bubble.png" caption="" credit="" alt=""]Richard MacManus has posted about web 2.0 business models and the sudden onslaught on VC funding we've seen in the last few weeks and months. He writes:
I'm sensing a backlash about the rising VC interest in Web 2.0. Mike Rundle takes aim at Flock in his post subtitled "The Leaning Tower of Buzz". He thinks Flock is only useful to the blog crowd and doesn't have a viable business model. Bart from Flock disagrees, saying in the comments that they do have a plan to make money and the market will decide. Then I went and read Kevin Burton's post, entitled Dot Bomb All Over Again?. Kevin blames "tech reliance on Venture Capital" for what he thinks is too much hype and too little value. Om Malik specifically references YouTube, a video-sharing service that got $5 million in funding, and says the "Web 2.0 funding frenzy is in full effect.
So is web 2.0 over-hyped and overfunded, or is it a genuine opportunity? Richard sides with the latter, but I'm going to sit on the fence on this one. My question is: why should the two concepts be mutually exclusive? Some of the new companies we've seen have strong business models and a strong focus on what they need to achieve, while others are aimless, badly thought-out and will probably fade away pretty soon. We can't tar them all with the same proverbial brush.