Bubble 2.0 coming soon

He's wrong. I was in the middle of the first Bubble, and I don't think things are nearly as bad now.<p>Lots of lame startups are getting funded, but for far less money apiece. And it is the scale of investment that defines a bubble, not the number of companies.

It could very well be that, for most people working 'inside the bubble', this one may, in retrospect, have ended very similarly to the last one. A lot of people essentially spent a bunch of years working for chump, in widely shared anticipation of riches that never materialized.<p> At the same time, since not nearly as many outsiders are betting their life savings on the 'bubblers', the economy wide impact of even the most devastating sector wipeout, won't be nearly as bad as dot bomb.<p> In that respect, how you'll come to view it will depend largely on where you stand.<p> It could also be that what we are seeing is the leading edge of PG's predicted trend for more young people to enter working life by doing a startup, rather than going to work for someone. This would probably in and of itself lead to an economic landscape looking a bit 'bubbly' by historical standards.<p> I guess only time will tell.

I think we're stuck in a Bubble Bubble. (Or is it the Metabubble?)<p>You'd think that after living through two real bubbles we might develop some higher standards. Instead, the word "bubble" is getting applied to every fad, era, technology, and press release that comes along.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with Dvorak, but (generally) he's right. <p>Where he's wrong:<p>1. It won't be as bad as dot-bomb.<p>2. It has nothing to do with the type of product, and everything to do with investment hype and greed.

I disagree. I think the last bubble was marked by the high number of tech IPOs that were so over valued. Now, we're not seeing as many IPOs of these companies with virtually no product. Instead, we're seeing a lot of VC money being thrown around and a lot of acquisitions. So, I don't believe it's really going to burst. When everything catches up, a lot of VCs will be out of a lot of money, but if you have a good idea and a solid audience, you'll be ok.

All I see are a lot of statements without supportive reasoning. The article reads something like this:<p>"We're in a bubble!"<p>"CD-ROMs ... Pad Comp--SPREADSHEETS!"<p>"People are talking to each other on the Internet! Even in Second Life! It's crazy!"<p>"There are videos on the Internet!"<p>"People are making things on the Internet!"<p>"Google thought of something I wish I had!"<p>"Widgets!"

There is a bit of craziness going on... A lot of people are spending a LOT of money on eyeballs and a lot of people have lost track that eyeballs and revenue don't necessarily mean the same thing.<p>There also seems to be a general disregard for business models (which I know can come later, but it's GOT to come SOMETIME).

Wait! Wait! Everybody stop innovating, innovation brings change and change might be BAD! The sky is falling, aaaahhhh....<p>Give me a break, or at least some evidence of a second IPO craze and examples of growth before profit companies you think are doomed. This is mostly sensationalism, little fact.

Dvorak is so horribly bad at his job! I don't understand why they even let him on the Internet anymore.

Valuable and powerful things can survive any bubble, and they did in the past. Only those who are making money on viral/pyramidal schemes or otherwise just bloated ideas born in VP of Marketing office have to worry about all these apocalyptic predistions. Wasn't it obvious?

One huge difference is that you don't have an insane fund raising model: 1) Buy domain 2) Go public 3) Build product 4) Get users 5) Monetize<p>It is harder to have an equity collapse when companies are small and barebones.