

Is LinkedIn the New Netscape? - wslh
http://gluecon.com/2011/?p=702

======
michaelpinto
What really killed Netscape was Microsoft — but if you're looking for a real
example of the web 1.0 bubble you can look at theGlobe.com (which by the way
was a social media website). My guess is that some of these companies will
crash and burn, but somewhere in that class could be the next Google.

~~~
gaius
No, that's simply not true. Netscape's strategy was _always_ to make money
from its server products, I quote Jim Clark "I'm building printing presses,
but first I've got to teach people to read" - that's why they gave away the
browser, to build a market for servers.

What killed Netscape is that version 3 of their server was a dog, and everyone
switched to Apache or Zeus. I was there.

~~~
code_duck
I thought Netscape used to charge for the browser - it was $35 if I recall
correctly. Hence, MS was plotting to cut off their 'air supply' by giving away
IE, removing NS's source of revenue.

~~~
gaius
They charged people who would want support, it was always free to people who
didn't need/want it.

My employer at the time spent 6-figures at a time on Netscape server products,
for ourselves and our clients, we must have spent millions with them. Then
version 3 came out and we either stuck to 2 or moved off Netscape platform
entirely. And that was a big deal, since we had written loads of NSAPI code!
But that's what killed Netscape.

------
neovive
Recall, that at the time of the Netscape IPO (1995), Netscape and even the
Internet was relatively unknown by most non-technical people, thus the ensuing
hype and gold-rush mentality. This time around, the Internet and social media
is in the mainstream. Millions of LinkedIn and Facebook users are fully aware
of the capabilities and limitations. There is clearly room to grow and LI has
some excellent opportunities, but I don't think the same sense of excitement
and awe exists around the LinkedIn IPO as there was for Netscape.

~~~
rhygar
While "social" is sort of mainstream (in the sense that everyone and their
mother is on Facebook), there's hardly any money in it. The vast majority of
Internet users spend their time doing three things on the web: Facebook,
e-mail, and time wasters like games & YouTube.

So while the userbase is certainly very large, the revenue potential is very
limited outside of those core activities.

------
orijing
> My answer is firmly standing on "maybe."

What does it mean to be firmly on "maybe"?

~~~
jacques_chester
Based on my experience of law school, it means that you have excellent
potential as a lawyer.

------
rhygar
The _best_ idea that came out of something like TechCrunch Disrupt is an "X of
Y" (AirBnb of cars). A ton of people struggled to come up with Internet
companies and that's the best we can do?

To me, that's a clear sign of solutions looking for problems. In other words,
"there's gold in them hills".

