Came across an interesting chart of Vallleywag (masters of the pie charts, graphs, slides, etc.) highlighting some of the most promising startups.
Some of these:
- are indeed behemoths (Facebook),
- others are rehashes of Web 1994-2000 ideas hyped up to massive valuations in this era of rational exuberance (Ancestry.com/Geni anyone?),
- some are perennial laggards in a segment that requires to be huge (Adbrite vs. Google/Yahoo!),
- most are too young to be taken seriously (Twitter was oh-so-hot a month ago, and we’re already impressed by a competitor, Jaiku, this month),
- a few are just fortunate to benefit from an obsession from mainstream media (can we get one issue of Business Week without a five page spread on Second Life?),
- a couple are given mad props due to their pedigree (Joost/Skype and Kazaa, Slide/Max Levchin of Paypal, Ning/Marc Andreessen),
- a bunch I’ve never heard of before, and in all honesty and fairness to the otherwise smart, ambitious, hard working blokes who launched them, that says more about my short attention span and ignorance that their impressive enterprises, but still, can they be so hot if a guy who covers the space and lives online 24/7 has never heard of them? Hmm, I guess, yeah, probably. It’s a big world, even if everything is a click away.
- a couple are unsexy by Web 2.0 standards, but I presume cleaning house (Art.com)…
But while most of these companies fall under many categories, I do wonder, looking at LinkedIn and Facebook, is spamming a prerequisitive trait of a hot startup? LinkedIn, though not as bad as Plaxo (nowhere on the list, mind you), is viral marketing par excellence. Facebook is out of control. Come to think of it, spamming was also part of YouTube’s modus operandi. I’m trying to think if MySpace was as bad…
This begs the question: can a company be a successful startup without the need to get users to email one another like rabbits in heat?
Think about it while go empty my indox… And until I get back, check out our Top 10 Most Explosive Startups of All Time.