ACCUSE Companies
Remember when one of the arguments against Open Source software was that there were simply too many choices for software (wait was that ever an argument)? If you wanted a text editor you had a 1,001 chances to find one and I know in my case many times when another came out I just asked myself why? Why would you even bother becoming text editor 1,002? I guess people feel that they can always create something better or maybe they just are creating it for themselves and releasing it to the public. Scratching an itch I suppose.
I get that same feeling with all of these “web 2.0″ websites, but even worse because they don’t improve upon anything. Rarely are there more features than the competition and if you are lucky the design might be a tad bit better, but nothing really stands out that makes you want to switch over from web 2.0 product A. What makes things even worse is that you get the feeling that the creators of these products aren’t doing it for themselves to use, but doing so because they believe they can make money from it.
Look at the eHub list provided by Emily Chang and you can see how many sites all fit into the same category and offer the exact same thing. I’m not saying that people shouldn’t bother developing web applications that benefit just them, but if they wish to do so and make a business out of it at least focus on both the design and featureset. In this case the featureset might actually be less features and pushing the product to be more streamlined (*this sentence has been endorsed by the fine folks at 37signals).
ACCUSE
Another Copycat Company U See Everyday.
How many products this year actually remained successful past their initial buzz? I mean which products continued to get mentioned after their launch and how many do you think faltered after their initial push? I made a comment to Colin the other day that if the main programming language of the web was still C then you wouldn’t have this issue of copycat companies. I think you would see more people putting more thought into what they are producing because they wouldn’t be able to do it so easily.
However, today all you need is some AJAX and Ruby/PHP/Python/ASP.net and you have a “web 2.0 application”. Why create another bookmarking service when there are already some qualities ones out there? Well because it only takes you a couple of hours to pop one out and you might be able to make some money off of it so why not go with it. Fair enough I suppose, but I wish there was a bit more thought put into the business part of the equation like how will the product become big? What separates it from the competition? What does it do better and what does it do worse? It looks like the hardest decision people make is what domain name to buy.
I hope that 2006 produces that next evolutionary leap in web applications. What’s going to be that next web app that makes everybody’s eyes bulge out?
Whatever it is, it will most likely have people as its focus. Just about all of the really good apps I’ve seen lately have a lot to do with people… ie. Flickr, del.icio.us, etc.
By richard on December 14, 2005 12:47 pm
I’m still waiting for a Web 2.0 app to track the migratory activities of wood snails in Arkansas.
By Greg on December 14, 2005 12:51 pm
I don’t know if I should be surprised that you are waiting for an app like that or that there are actually wood snails in Arkansas.
By Scrivs on December 14, 2005 12:55 pm
I agree, there are so many Web 2.0 sites / web apps out there that it’s getting hard to keep up. I wouldn’t worry about it though, because the ACCUSE types will fall off gradually by themselves, as the dust starts to settle admidst the hype, and all the venture capitalists out there regain their sanity. In the end, the proven web apps will remain and be improved on, and the other, less featured or dedicated ones will find something else to do with their time.
By Nathan Smith on December 14, 2005 1:16 pm
I’m not so sure they will fall off that quickly because as I mentioned the development of these apps doesn’t require a lot of resources and bandwidth is so cheap you figure that they can just keep these websites around with the illusion that something big will happen one day. Everyone is waiting for that tipping point it seems that isn’t going to arrive.
By Scrivs on December 14, 2005 1:34 pm
It’s been a while since I’ve agreed 100% with you. Keep in mind though, that Web 2.0 is a mindset (I read that just this morning, but I can’t remember who said it). That said, I think your points are exactly why I’m so disenchanted with my field again. The barriers of entry are once again so low that it’s hard to really excel in a saturated market. I subscribe to the eHub rss feed and the Ajaxian Blog. I’m amazed at how many repetitive things I see on both. It’s tiring.
By Lance E. Leonard on December 14, 2005 1:41 pm
Lance: Glad I could finally help you to see the light ;-). Honestly though low barrier to entry is something I pounded to death in other circles concerning blog networks. Everybody can start one because starting a blog is no big deal and linking them under the same banner is even easier so in the end you see 60 networks sprout up within a month and all of them expect to be successful.
I really don’t mind that much as I used to simply because if you can be the best of those 60 then you are standing out more I think than you would in just a crowd of 2. I don’t know if that makes any sense, but it does to me for some reason.
By Scrivs on December 14, 2005 1:51 pm
Lets change the word application in this post with the word blog. Lets try it: Who needs so many blogs, they all say the same thing, they all want to make money (the shame!), most of them are not very good, they all look alike, everybody does them since it’s so easy, remember the old days you had to write HTML with Notepad, and you had a 14,400 modem?
So what? What is the point? Good application/blogs/whatever will survive bad one will vanish. Some of the bad ones will become better, some of the better one might even make money. And there is place for more then one Flickr or del.icio.us (how many free big e-mail online services are out there?).You like IceRocket I like Technorati. There is plenty of space in cyberspace.
By Raanan Avidor on December 14, 2005 2:02 pm
Raanan: I agree that there is plenty of space, but there is only so much mindshare available and that’s the issue. It can get frustrating responding to people day after day asking why their site isn’t successful or why their app won’t take off. If you build it they might come if you can get successful factors #1-#102 together.
By Scrivs on December 14, 2005 2:05 pm
Raanan, or change “application” to “wiki.” Holy crap there are a lot of wiki clones. And they are all poor (No, Instiki is not a true option until RoR hosting is ubiquitous).
And I think the level of quality is inversely proportional to the number of players in the field — If users ask for a feature, developers can brush them off by pointing to six other apps that do what they want (maybe not in the same app, and maybe not with a usable interface, but hey, features is features!)
With only 3 or 4 or a dozen apps in a space, there is a lot more at stake as you can differentiate your app and claim big chunks of userbase.
By Josh on December 14, 2005 3:19 pm
“And I think the level of quality is inversely proportional to the number of players in the field”
That’s an interesting statement and counter-intuitive. Obviously, the general rule is that more competition drives quality up as companies fight for customers. But, for some of this ‘Web 2.0′ stuff, you may have a point. Thought provoking.
By benny on December 14, 2005 4:10 pm
Hmmm, maybe in the case of Web 2.0 you are seeing people who think that just because someone has already done it, that there is no problem with them doing it. “This site sucks, so I can create a site that sucks and watch it become popular as well.”
This all goes back to barriers of entry though.
By Scrivs on December 14, 2005 5:20 pm
Sometimes it’s good having diferent services that do the same, increases competition and makes the good ones take the next step.
One other question is the language barrier, not sometimes we understand better something in our own language then in English.
By Mario on December 14, 2005 6:27 pm
Scrivs: When I said that the less successful web ventures would sort of die off, I didn’t mean for lack of trying. Of course if a small web team is persistent, they can keep going back to the drawing board. What I was referring to are those who get into the whole Web 2.0 craze with venture capitalist money, and then it all comes crashing down (Pajamas Media). Or, the types that start something solely for the purpose / hope that it will be bought by a larger company (Del.icio.us wannabes). My point is, if the right motivation isn’t there, nothing is successful, in Web 1.0, 2.0, etc.
By Nathan Smith on December 14, 2005 10:11 pm
In defense of ACCUSE companies (that are not vc funded or acquisition motivated), I think a lot of these guys really enjoy what they do, and they are probably trying their best to create a successful site. But lets face it, creating a successful site isn’t as easy as it sounds. If it were, I would have done it already.
I like the low entry point. I think it’s what makes the internet great. It gives the little guys (like myself) a chance to play on the same field as larger companies. It’s a whole learning experience. An ACCUSE company might put out 4-5 copycat apps, but learn what it takes to create the next Flickr.
I think the “if you can’t do it right (successful), don’t do it at all” mantra is bad for the web development community. I think we should be encouraging more ACCUSE companies to step up and put something out there.
By Kyle Posey on December 15, 2005 8:47 am
Kyle: Excellent point and it complements what I am saying. I guess the gist of my whole entry should breakdown to:
Indeed companies that release quickly can gain more knowledge than not releasing any at all. And right != successful in many cases. You can do the exact same thing as Flickr, which seems to be the right way, but that won’t make you successful necessarily.
By Scrivs on December 15, 2005 12:42 pm