Beware The Web 2.0 Walking Dead

About This Blog

This site is for  entrepreneurs.  A full RSS feed to the articles is available.  Please subscribe so we know you're out there.  If you need more convincing, learn more about the site.



And, you can find me on Google+

Connect on Twitter

Get Articles By Email

Your email:


Blog Navigator

Navigate By : 
[Article Index]

Questions about startups?

If you have questions about startups, you can find me and a bunch of other startup fanatics on the free Q&A website:

Subscribe to Updates


30,000+ subscribers can't all be wrong.  Subscribe to the RSS feed.

Follow me on LinkedIn


Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Beware The Web 2.0 Walking Dead


Back in Bubble 1.0, um, I mean Web 1.0, when a startup failed to take off, it generally died a relatively clean and definitive death.  We all knew the company was dead because the assets were sold or auctioned, the servers shut down and the service rendered unavailable.

Now, with Web 2.0 companies, it seems that there is a risk of what I would call the “walking dead”.  Walking dead are companies that have essentially died (but have not quite been put to rest).  There is no longer effort being put into the software.  The founders have lost interest.  Support is no longer available.    In most cases, this is not a big deal.  A lot of these startups have a limited number of users anyways, or are providing a non-critical service – but not always.  Besides, one could argue that if they’re not really dead (i.e. still operating) it doesn’t really matter if the software is no longer being enhanced or supported (as long as it’s useful).  

Thoughts On The Web 2.0 Walking Dead
First, there are factors that increase the likelihood of the walking dead phenomenon in a Web 2.0 world:
  1. Lack of Investors:  In Web 1.0, many startups could (and did) raise outside capital – sometimes lots of it.  As a result, once it was determined that the startup was not going to “take off” as the investors expected, there was usually a reason to actually shut-down the company and write off the investment.  There was no reason for the investors to let the startup continue operating and carry the liability if there was little chance of a meaningful exit.  They were better off shutting it down.  Startups without outside capital (which represents a lot of the Web 2.0 startups today) don’t have this external pressure to have a “clean” shut-down.

  1. Lower Infrastructure Costs:  It takes a lot less money now to operate a hosted web application than it did back during Web 1.0.  Hardware, bandwidth and storage are all cheaper.  There’s an abundant supply of hosting providers (keeping competition high and prices low).  Open source has reduced the cost of systems software like operating systems, web servers, programming languages and databases down to near zero.  As such, it doesn’t take a lot of money to keep a Web 2.0 company “running” anymore (assuming there is no more human effort being expended).  Humans are still expensive (relatively speaking).

  1. Advertising Efficiency:  Now that online advertising has been made much more “efficient” by the likes of Google (and now Yahoo! and Microsoft), it is easier for startups to generate at least modest revenue through a semi-successful website.  Often, these revenues can be sufficient to cover the infrastructure costs mentioned above.  When this is the case, there is little reason for the company to actually die (it continues to exist as the “walking dead”).

There are also a couple of factors that decrease the likelihood of startups becoming the walking dead:
  1. Easier Exits:  One thing that argues the opposite of the above points is the availability of simpler exit paths for startups.  For example, I know of at least four startups that offered their assets up for auction on eBay.  By making it easier for startups to find a potential acquirer, they are more likely to do so.  Further, if they use a public vehicle (like eBay) for seeking an exit, it is likely that their users will know it.

  1. Perpetual Hope:  As the number of Internet users continues to grow and we see new “shifts” in the online advertising space (more competition, better models), startups can often have the chance to be rejuvenated.  There are enough cases where companies that to be “dead” later became alive again (with new capital, a new strategy and a new hope for exit).    Though this certainly gives these companies a chance to be reborn, this also increases the chance for the “almost dead” companies to hang-around while holding on to that hope.

I don’t think this Web 2.0 “walking dead” is a major issue.  As I mentioned, most of the startups that might be classified as “walking dead” are not providing critical functions without which their users could not continue to live productive, meaningful lives anyways.  The number of users impacted by one of these startups is almost by definition small (because if a given startup had a large number of users, they’d likely be living anyways).  I just find the concept intellectually interesting. 

What do you think?  How would you know if one of your favorite Web 2.0 applications is the walking dead?  Would you care anyways (or would you just use it while it was alive and find something else if it happened to be put to rest)?

Posted by Dharmesh Shah on Fri, Oct 06, 2006


This is more of a side effect of the fact that these aren't really companies, but projects. It is very common for software projects to "die", but still be available for use. A decent proportion of software on SourceForge is "dead" software (hasn't been updated in years), but people still find a use for it.

This isn't that much different, except that they are web-based applications instead of traditional software projects. As you said, since hosting is so cheap these days, it is not too difficult for somebody to keep a server alive so that people can continue to use a software project that they have lost interest in.

Chances are if these were real companies instead of just projects, that the company would continue to exist, but rather just be focusing on a different project.

posted on Friday, October 06, 2006 at 11:51 AM by Erik

I like the comparison to SourceForge. I frequently download and use open source software, and it's really hard to know if it's still getting developed.

However, my criteria for deciding on whether or not to use the software is more heavily weighted on how complete the product than whether or not it's actively maintained. I'll much readily download something that's well-documented and has a sufficient feature list than something that's being developed daily with the default SourceForge home page and zero docs.

Same with web services -- I'd gladly continue to use all the web apps I use now as long as they're production-ready. This is of course assuming that someone has an eye on it to keep the lights on, and that they'll reboot a server if it goes down. But maybe I'm assuming too much "walking" from the "walking dead."

posted on Friday, October 06, 2006 at 12:31 PM by Ade

I think the most important thing when using some of these new services, is if you can get out of it somewhat easily or what happens if they shut down.
I just started using a service from some early startup where it is really not sure if they will continue to develop this thing, but they promised to open source the project if they stop working on it, which would allow me to continue to use it, even if the project dies.
Same with data, it's important that you can export your data somehow and that it is not a locked down, closed system.

posted on Friday, October 06, 2006 at 3:26 PM by Remy

Any comments to this rumor folks?

“Google Inc. is in talks to acquire popular video-sharing site YouTube Inc. for roughly $1.6 billion, according to a person familiar with the matter. The discussions are still at a sensitive stage and could well break off, this person says.”

posted on Friday, October 06, 2006 at 4:39 PM by john mcginnis


posted on Friday, October 06, 2006 at 11:47 PM by Nader Soliman

What were the four companies offered on eBay?

posted on Thursday, December 21, 2006 at 3:37 AM by RA

Comments have been closed for this article.