The primary problem for all these Web 2.0 startups is many were built on the assumption that it would be easier for a Google, Yahoo or Microsoft to buy rather than build. But, as you can see from some of the details leaking out about Google Calendar and some of the other things there doing most of these new add-ons are highly integrated into their existing apps. Not meaning to say I told you so (okay, yes I am) but as I said in my GMail: One app to rule them all post, all of this stuff is going to work together and as such its far easier to build than buy.
It makes a lot of sense that Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and others will seek to fold everything in to one megasystem so that you can schedule live-blogging Desperate Housewives: Reality Edition with your circle of friends or whatever it is we’ll be doing via the interweb three years from now.
However, I think that the author is drawing the wrong conclusion by using this development as an excuse to attack the entire drive towards transforming how we interact through computers that is (IMO) the heart of Web 2.0. I’m with this guy:
Elijah Blue Says:
Silly boy. WEb 2.0 is innovation. 90% fails.. 10% succeeds… cool new world. And you can build a Web 2.0 company and get it running for $50-100K (vs. $5million to turn on the lights during dot com boom days). It’s like comparing 8 track tapes to SATA hard drives. What we need here kids are more writers (creators) and less editors (rewriters/critics/bloggers). Anyone can criticize, few seem willing to do the work to create.