Dharmesh Shah

Recent Posts

Web 4.0 Is For Wankers: Stop The Madness!

By Dharmesh Shah on April 25, 2008

Apologies in advance for using the term wanker. It's probably the most pejorative word I've ever used in an article title. I'm likely going to regret this someday, but it's been a long week and a little venting never hurt anybody (famous last words).

On with the show.

I've never been a big fan of the term "Web 2.0". I have no issues with some of the underlying concepts, I just don't like the term.

I wrote an article about why:

Web 2.0, Web 3.0 and Beyond: Villainous Version Numbers

I disliked the term so much, when I spoke at the MIT Venture Capital conference back in 2006, I began my opening remarks with: "Personally I think the Web 2.0 label sucks...". (the title of the panel had the term "Web 2.0" in it). Once I got that out of my system, I felt better and had a pretty good time.

So, you can imagine my chagrin when I found a reference to the term Web 4.0 on TechCrunch recently in an article by Erick Schonfield. Now granted, the article wasn't about Web 4.0. But still...The reference in the article even puts an approximate date on the Web 4.0 movement. We should expect to see it around 2020 (so says the visual in the article). Oh, and in case you were wondering, Web 2.0 was the "social web", Web 3.0 is the "semantic web" and Web 4.0 is going to be the "intelligent web". (No, I'm not making this up).

I guess the web community better get cranking on all the point releases in between Web 2.0 and Web 4.0. We've got some work to do.

People, can we please all stop the madness with trying to put version numbers on the web?

(And yes, I see the irony in the fact that my call to action itself propagates the term Web 4.0 by using it -- CURSES!).

Update: A couple of other articles on the related topic of Web X.0 as a label:

Charles Cooper (CNet): Time to dump the Web 2.0 sobriquet

An alternate view from Stowe Boyd: Another voice calling for the end of Web 2.0

Continue Reading

Startup School: David Heinemeier Hansson vs. Everybody Else

By Dharmesh Shah on April 25, 2008

The following is a guest article by Philip Crissman.  OnStartups partially sponsored Philip's trip to Startup School 2008 in exchange for sharing some of key lessions for those of us that could not make it.  -Dharmesh


David Heinemeier Hansson's Startup School talk was probably one of the most popular, and the most out of sync with the rest of the day's talks. Where most speakers took for granted that the entrepreneur would be seeking VC funding, David took the opposite approach; he wanted to talk about how you could start making money on your own, growing your company without needing to go look for funding.

David opened with the canonical "business model joke", made famous on Slashdot:

1. Brilliant Product
2. ???
3. Profit!

His answer to this, was:

1. Brilliant Product.
2. Price.
3. Profit!

He went on to argue against the Venture Capital model, in general, in favor of simply building a business by the somewhat revolutionary idea of just charging money for your products.

Ironically, he was immediately preceded by Greg McAdoo of Sequoia Capital. McAdoo, naturally, was telling the audience what VCs were looking for and how to build a presentation or a company which would get their attention. Following this, Hansson's message seemed nearly the opposite.

I enjoyed both talks, and thought that they were simply talking about two very different ideas.

McAdoo is a venture capitalist, so a large slant of his perspective is going to lean towards the investors. This is not to say that Sequoia or other VCs are not interested in the entrepreneur's best interest -- obviously, VCs need entrepreneurs in order to do what they do. However, they also need to represent their investors. Without capital, they would simply be business consultants, whose attention and advice the entrepreneur would need to pay for. Since their beholden to their investors, it's well known that they are looking not just to double or triple their investment, but quadruple or quintuple their initial investment.

Heinemeier Hansson, on the other hand, is thinking about the developer. He's asking: wouldn't you rather simply run a profitable company with a product you enjoy? Why do you need to be a billion dollar company when you can more easily be a million dollar company?

From where I sat, they were both saying some of the same things. Both acknowledged the same odds -- how relatively few startups would be those huge winners, the billion dollar ideas.

The difference is,

  • McAdoo and the VCs are specifically, on purpose, looking for those top few percent; that's their role. That is what they do.
  • Heinemeier Hansson is looking at all the other successful-but-not-necessarily-world-changing businesses you could start, and asking "Why not just build something like this?"

We do want to be realistic; it's important to acknowledge the risk we might be getting ourselves into. It may be that, like Hansson suggests, we'd rather take a 1:10 chance of making a million versus a 1:10,000 chance of making a billion.

What seemed to have been skipped is that the nature of the idea will have a lot to do with which path you decide to pursue. It's difficult to see how a business idea like Google, for example, could have succeeded without seed capital. It's hard to imagine Google starting and succeeding with a 37Signals-style subscription model; especially in the time when Google launched, having to "pay" for the privilege of searching the web would likely have been a recipe for failure.

On the other hand, it's just as hard to see Basecamp as a ubiquitous piece of software that simply everyone uses -- not everyone needs to manage projects. There's a much smaller pool of people who would need to do that, but they are much more likely to pay for a good way to do it.

What I took from the contrast between Heinemeier Hansson's talk, and the majority of the other talks, was the importance of having a healthy dose of realism.

Some ideas might well have that billion-dollar potential, and may need that VC funding to get going. A lot more ideas really can be put together in 10 hours per week (as Hansson mentioned Basecamp was built), and then run as a profitable business. The important thing is having the ability to tell one sort of idea from the other.
Topics: ycombinator
Continue Reading

Recommended For You


Let's Connect

And, you can find me on Google+, Twitter, and Linkedin.

Recent Posts

Chat with GrowthBot

It's a bot to help you with your marketing and grow. You can research your competitors, improve your SEO and a lot more. http:/GrowthBot.org