I think it’s funny all the anti-Web 2.0 stuff that’s been happening around blogs lately. Meanwhile hundreds of people show up to TechCrunch’s BBQ to talk about the future of the Web. I showed up at about 11 p.m. and it was still rocking and rolling and demos were going on. Yeah, there’s a lot of hype. But, I keep seeing stuff I want to use, too. So, is there hype? Yes. But there’s a TON of new ideas coming out of the valley lately.
One other thing? This crowd isn’t using very much Microsoft stuff. More Microsofties would do well to hang out, and figure out, what this group of entrepreneurs needs. I saw some ideas that could turn into very big businesses, if executed well (stuff that hasn’t yet been shown in public).
Anyway, Dave Winer is throwing me a geek dinner on Monday night. Details to come, but it’ll be in Berkeley. You can RSVP here. Of course you’re invited. You don’t even need to be a geek, but it certainly helps.
[…] Pictures (tag: techcrunch) Dave Winer Robert Scoble Matt Marshall/SiliconBeat Marc Canter Tara Hunt Ethan Stock Narendra Rocherolle Susan Mernit Richard MacManus (you were here in spirit Richard) Ben Barren Tags: techcrunch, web2.0, web+2.0 Categories: Techcrunch | Bookmark this post with del.icio.us […]
Robert,
About your comment on why people aren’t using Microsoft stuff for their startups…I have some opinions on that.
I believe one of the contributing factors of this is cost. In order for a startup to get up and going with Microsoft, they need to spend a lot of up front money, and as you can see by the guy asking for 20 bucks for servers this is a cost that they can’t afford.
I’ll give you an example. Let’s say that I have 4 developers working on a web application based on Microsoft technologies. They should all have Visual Studio .NET since it’s probably the best way to program in ASP.NET and C# (or VB.NET). The full version Visual Studio .NET isn’t cheap last time I checked.
Of course, we’ll need servers; at least one web server and one database server. That incurs not only the hardware cost but the cost of a license for Windows Server 2003 Web Edition and SQL Server 2000 with Software Assurance if they want to upgrade for free to 2005. SQL Server, the full version, runs about 6,000 dollars per processor although there are alternatives (Windows Server 2003 SBS Enterprise comes to mind).
If you want to scale your web farm out using a load balancer and get more servers you would have to buy additional licenses for Windows Server 2003 Web Edition for each server that you get.
Boy…these costs are starting to add up.
Wouldn’t it be easier on a startup to just use the LAMP stack and focus on spending money on quality hardware and their bandwidth bill?
Of course there have been various studies on the true cost of Open Source tecnologies and it could be argued both ways but one thing is clear…Microsoft always loses this war in up front costs. In the long term…I’ll leave it up to the analysts to bicker about that.
Another detraction to using Microsoft technologies is the marriage to the Microsoft platform. I’ll give you an example. I’m sure you’ve heard of Meebo. I read on their blog that they switched from Apache to Lighttpd because the latter offered significant performance increases for their specific application.
If their code was all ASP.NET then they’d be stuck on IIS. There would be no other options for them.
I’m sure that there are other reasons that those guys (and gals) aren’t using Microsoft stuff, but those are the points that immediately came to mind for me.
Robert,
About your comment on why people aren’t using Microsoft stuff for their startups…I have some opinions on that.
I believe one of the contributing factors of this is cost. In order for a startup to get up and going with Microsoft, they need to spend a lot of up front money, and as you can see by the guy asking for 20 bucks for servers this is a cost that they can’t afford.
I’ll give you an example. Let’s say that I have 4 developers working on a web application based on Microsoft technologies. They should all have Visual Studio .NET since it’s probably the best way to program in ASP.NET and C# (or VB.NET). The full version Visual Studio .NET isn’t cheap last time I checked.
Of course, we’ll need servers; at least one web server and one database server. That incurs not only the hardware cost but the cost of a license for Windows Server 2003 Web Edition and SQL Server 2000 with Software Assurance if they want to upgrade for free to 2005. SQL Server, the full version, runs about 6,000 dollars per processor although there are alternatives (Windows Server 2003 SBS Enterprise comes to mind).
If you want to scale your web farm out using a load balancer and get more servers you would have to buy additional licenses for Windows Server 2003 Web Edition for each server that you get.
Boy…these costs are starting to add up.
Wouldn’t it be easier on a startup to just use the LAMP stack and focus on spending money on quality hardware and their bandwidth bill?
Of course there have been various studies on the true cost of Open Source tecnologies and it could be argued both ways but one thing is clear…Microsoft always loses this war in up front costs. In the long term…I’ll leave it up to the analysts to bicker about that.
Another detraction to using Microsoft technologies is the marriage to the Microsoft platform. I’ll give you an example. I’m sure you’ve heard of Meebo. I read on their blog that they switched from Apache to Lighttpd because the latter offered significant performance increases for their specific application.
If their code was all ASP.NET then they’d be stuck on IIS. There would be no other options for them.
I’m sure that there are other reasons that those guys (and gals) aren’t using Microsoft stuff, but those are the points that immediately came to mind for me.
The answer is even easier than that — of course, Microsoft only really makes sense on a large scale, TCO formulational basis (as much as Software Assurance is trying to thwart such). But most of these so-called “entrepreneurs” (that Scoble is pointing out) aren’t even real companies, most all just hyping and hawking up Web 2.0 meme’s, which at best are merely good feature sets. With shoestring budgets and no revenue sources, makes no economic sense to pander and market to. Pay attention WHEN they become a viable company. The only long-term biz plan for most is, “get acquired”.
As for all the anti-Web 2.0 stuff, more people aren’t fooled twice you know. The first round got all bought up by we-paid-way-too-much duped “Web 1.0″ companies, and the second round is all derivative, aka Tim’s-bucket-of-fridge-meme-map-magnets.
The answer is even easier than that — of course, Microsoft only really makes sense on a large scale, TCO formulational basis (as much as Software Assurance is trying to thwart such). But most of these so-called “entrepreneurs” (that Scoble is pointing out) aren’t even real companies, most all just hyping and hawking up Web 2.0 meme’s, which at best are merely good feature sets. With shoestring budgets and no revenue sources, makes no economic sense to pander and market to. Pay attention WHEN they become a viable company. The only long-term biz plan for most is, “get acquired”.
As for all the anti-Web 2.0 stuff, more people aren’t fooled twice you know. The first round got all bought up by we-paid-way-too-much duped “Web 1.0″ companies, and the second round is all derivative, aka Tim’s-bucket-of-fridge-meme-map-magnets.
Christopher, when you say “we paid way too much for duped Web 1.0 companies” are you talking about eBay, Google, Yahoo, and Amazon?
Christopher, when you say “we paid way too much for duped Web 1.0 companies” are you talking about eBay, Google, Yahoo, and Amazon?
Yap, as well as News Corp. (Re: Myspace) and any other buy-up or company that makes all the Esalen New Agey Sand Hillish tech-wonks gleefully joyous. Just a casual glance at the Sand Hill VC lists, shows so many stinkers, I can almost pick them like a baseball game, actually it’s easier, but the “get acquired” stratgey is always an unknown factor, and that kick can take a stinker to the bank easy, spray paint that rock gold. Web 2.0 begets Bubble 2.0
PS - And I said “we-paid-way-too-much duped Web 1.0 companies” not “we paid way too much for duped Web 1.0 companies”. Leave out the hyphens, it changes the whole sentence and no FOR. Quote me right, geesh.
Yap, as well as News Corp. (Re: Myspace) and any other buy-up or company that makes all the Esalen New Agey Sand Hillish tech-wonks gleefully joyous. Just a casual glance at the Sand Hill VC lists, shows so many stinkers, I can almost pick them like a baseball game, actually it’s easier, but the “get acquired” stratgey is always an unknown factor, and that kick can take a stinker to the bank easy, spray paint that rock gold. Web 2.0 begets Bubble 2.0
PS - And I said “we-paid-way-too-much duped Web 1.0 companies” not “we paid way too much for duped Web 1.0 companies”. Leave out the hyphens, it changes the whole sentence and no FOR. Quote me right, geesh.
> Quote me right, geesh.
Ironic that you’d ask this. I never did get an apology for that email that got its way into the hands of Orlowski and had my words changed on it.
Of course there’s lots of stinkers. How many products does Procter and Gamble put on the shelf every year? How many brands can you remember? Not many.
> Quote me right, geesh.
Ironic that you’d ask this. I never did get an apology for that email that got its way into the hands of Orlowski and had my words changed on it.
Of course there’s lots of stinkers. How many products does Procter and Gamble put on the shelf every year? How many brands can you remember? Not many.
“Pay attention WHEN they become a viable company. The only long-term biz plan for most is, “get acquired”.”
Yeah, once they get successful they will drop LAMP and switch over to Microsoft, just like Google, E-Bay, and Yahoo did. Oh, wait…
“Pay attention WHEN they become a viable company. The only long-term biz plan for most is, “get acquired”.”
Yeah, once they get successful they will drop LAMP and switch over to Microsoft, just like Google, E-Bay, and Yahoo did. Oh, wait…
[…] Other posts on TechCrunch meetup Mark Canter on Dave Winer’s keynote speech Robert Scoble was there as well. Report from Ethan Stock. Mike Arrington thanked everyone for coming. Post from LaughingSquid. Dave Winer gave a keynote, which NoSoapRadio mentions and Sylvia discusses in more detail. Tara took lots of photos. Andre Wooldridge wrote about his experience. Jared also wrote up some thoughts of his. >> General, Technology, Entertainment, Startups, Silicon Valley >> Comments […]
car insurance rates…
enrolls diaphragm bedroom Orinoco Zoroaster smashers residences European aarp http://aarp.another-insurance.com/ …