I'd hardly describe prof. Andrew McAfee as 'frothy.' Same goes for Dion Hinchcliffe.
Robert Scoble
· 3 years ago
Dennis: these two might not be, but this conference is sure getting attention as being frothy.
Christopher Coulter
· 3 years ago
So letmee get this straight, Tim's Web 2.0 and Emerging Tech Conferences are the end all be all (and FOO when invited, noFoo or Barcamp when not), and Mix 06 was a must-attend event, you were handing out free tix to Mash-Uppers and promoing that like all out (Michael Platt was your God then), and you are always on the TechCrunch party lists, but this is one here, is somehow no good. I think your real definition of "frothy" be "they didn't put me on the speaker list". I bet if Dave was a keynoter, you'd be all over this...
Of course it is totally-pure froth, but then so has been everything Web 2.0, hence selective froth belies ulterior motives. It's so so easy to read in bloggerese. Not only is it frothy, it's fraudy, arrogant, swarmy, and mash-up-feature-as-a-company brain-dead stupid.
Tysons Corner, eh? That's Spooksville, all those unmarked Offices, paid for by Langley, must be to angel-dust dazzle Government Service types, but boy what a total fake-up fall-pond swim. But to do Tyson's you need a National Security angle...
Robert Scoble
· 3 years ago
Mix06 had hard-core technical content (I wasn't a speaker there either). I called the latest TechCrunch party "a media event." I noted that the one before that made me think that the bubble was back. OK, OK, I didn't call it frothy, but it was.
O'Reilly's conferences always had hard-core technical content at them. This one makes fun of "getting deep without getting technical." Not the same at all.
Robert Scoble
· 3 years ago
It should be noted that TechCrunch's parties were PARTIES. Parties are supposed to be "frothy."
Conferences, where attendees are paying money to attend, are not supposed to be frothy.
james
· 3 years ago
I read where Arrington pocketed a cool 100,000 grand after expenses for his techcrunch party.
I feel so much better knowing that James was wrong....
Booger
Karl
· 3 years ago
I see no difference in WEB 2.0 although there is a lot of fuss on this blog about it!
Hugh MacLeod
· 3 years ago
"frothr.com"
What's wring with Arrington making money? Every person attending the party would do the same, if they could.
Key word being, "if".
dave rogers
· 3 years ago
Hugh, what might be wrong with making $50K on a party is that, for most of us, giving a party isn't about making money. Nor is it about promoting ourselves or our businesses. Mostly, they're just social events to spend some time enjoying the company of our friends.
There ought to be a different word for these types of parties, which are offered to garner attention, broker attention, and make a little, well I guess it depends on what you think a "little" is, money on the side.
As "if" you couldn't figure that out.
Joao Leitao
· 3 years ago
nice article. there was something i also wonder about. where do people come from, i mean, where to people that attend to this sort of stuff actually come from. see ya, keep on writing!
paul
· 3 years ago
Web 2.0 is a registered trademark now owned by CMP Media...
Christopher Coulter
· 3 years ago
So just "hard-core technical content" makes it all ok? That's just froth geeked up, this conference is froth minus the geek. So to be Web 2.0 and ok, you have to have hard-core technical content about vaportware and it's ok. No hard-core technical content, not ok. Right? Then this is froth FOR the masses.
And it wasn't a PARTY, it's a networking event...you don't party and pay big money, gettign exculsive invites with dim-bulb shallowheads like that. Ok, maybe you do. ;)
So breaking it down...
Web 2.0 + hard-core technical content = Ok. Web 2.0 - hard-core technical content - Bad.
Scott Ahlsmith, CTC
· 3 years ago
A conference becomes frothy when the profit motive of the organizers and the number of luminaries on the promotional flyers exceed the value of the content.
Christopher Coulter
· 3 years ago
Arrgh, Wordpress over-aggressive spam dog-catcher...spell and grammar check above.
Funny that your "froth" now has a qualifier definition, as meaning not sufficiently technical enough. Of course, even the geeky is froth. But always interesting in digesting the bloggeristic dicionary.
froth (frôth, frth) n. - [Middle English, from Old Norse frodha.] -- 1. Any Web 2.0 conference deemed ungeeky and not endorsed by Crazy Uncle Dave. 2. Any conference on blogs or Web 2.0 that somehow sees fit not to include me.
And I don't find anything wrong with the general principle of "getting deep without getting technical." Those are called End User Conferences or Trade Shows. So I am guessing a Gnomdex Web 2.0 would be bad? ;)
"Mostly, they’re just social events to spend some time enjoying the company of our friends."
Well, I would argue that the party was a social event, Dave. Only, the agenda wasn't about enjoying "the company of friends". But I've never seperated "work" and "social" much, as any reader of my blog can tell.
From what my spies tell me, pretty much everybody there had their own business agenda for attending. Which was made it interesting.
Robert Scoble
· 3 years ago
Christopher: I disagree with you that all of the "new web" is frothy or doesn't have business behind it.
There are plenty of sites that are actually making real money. The problem is we aren't talking enough about them. Instead we're talking about the froth.
I don't see a single session at this "new internet" conference about business models and how to increase your revenues. How to increase adoption? How to get outside the Techcrunch/TechMeme/Digg bubble.
And it doesn't even have a session on how to properly make rounded corner graphics. Heheh.
Frothy!
Tara 'Miss Rogue' Hunt
· 3 years ago
I'm so glad you said it and not me this time. ;)
Sigh.
Hugh MacLeod
· 3 years ago
englishcut.com was profitable from Q1. That's because we were using the blog to sell established, expensive products. Secondly, we started it for next to nothing and kept are overheads insanely low... we still do, actually.
The way to get outside the bubble is to sell non-bubble products in the first place.
Christopher Coulter
· 3 years ago
A good business is a good business, nothing special about making it webby or labeling it Web 2.0, it's just all a marketing/distributional method. And nothing new new about the new new...it's just the natural evolutionary product cycle, the same since dawn of time, new to specalized community to commodity.
The problem is we aren’t talking enough about them. Instead we’re talking about the froth.
Well, agreed there. So talk about non-froth. :)
Business and revenue models, at an internet conference?? Surely you jest. But you are on the right track...in wanting that. :)
End Prog
Iggy
· 3 years ago
So John points us to a picture of two women in bikinis surrounded by about ten guys and is trying to sell us on the fact that women were represented? Notice the women were leaving in the picture. For all we know that is a picture of a hotel pool. The geeks didn't seem to make that big of an impression. As I mentioned above the women look as if they are about to make an exit.
mark
· 1 year ago
Marco: mm interesting. Well it says it “lets you video chat“, but it still doesn’t specify whether you can actually HOST it.
Jimmy
· 1 year ago
Doesn't amuse me a bit as I went through similar similar crunchy situation with a client 3 months ago..when I just used my http://www.gomeetnow.com conferencing software for the 1st time.
All Comments
The obvious question is "whats the difference?"
Booger
Have you been on the Internet too long? :)
Women 2.0: Worth a thousand words
http://www.valleywag.com/tech/parties/women-20-...
Of course it is totally-pure froth, but then so has been everything Web 2.0, hence selective froth belies ulterior motives. It's so so easy to read in bloggerese. Not only is it frothy, it's fraudy, arrogant, swarmy, and mash-up-feature-as-a-company brain-dead stupid.
Tysons Corner, eh? That's Spooksville, all those unmarked Offices, paid for by Langley, must be to angel-dust dazzle Government Service types, but boy what a total fake-up fall-pond swim. But to do Tyson's you need a National Security angle...
O'Reilly's conferences always had hard-core technical content at them. This one makes fun of "getting deep without getting technical." Not the same at all.
Conferences, where attendees are paying money to attend, are not supposed to be frothy.
Not bad. Kinda like studio 54 in the 70's.
You are so right..,thats not correct at all. It was *only* $50,000 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/busine... see the last paragraph)
I feel so much better knowing that James was wrong....
Booger
What's wring with Arrington making money? Every person attending the party would do the same, if they could.
Key word being, "if".
There ought to be a different word for these types of parties, which are offered to garner attention, broker attention, and make a little, well I guess it depends on what you think a "little" is, money on the side.
As "if" you couldn't figure that out.
And it wasn't a PARTY, it's a networking event...you don't party and pay big money, gettign exculsive invites with dim-bulb shallowheads like that. Ok, maybe you do. ;)
So breaking it down...
Web 2.0 + hard-core technical content = Ok.
Web 2.0 - hard-core technical content - Bad.
Funny that your "froth" now has a qualifier definition, as meaning not sufficiently technical enough. Of course, even the geeky is froth. But always interesting in digesting the bloggeristic dicionary.
froth (frôth, frth) n. - [Middle English, from Old Norse frodha.] -- 1. Any Web 2.0 conference deemed ungeeky and not endorsed by Crazy Uncle Dave. 2. Any conference on blogs or Web 2.0 that somehow sees fit not to include me.
And I don't find anything wrong with the general principle of "getting deep without getting technical." Those are called End User Conferences or Trade Shows. So I am guessing a Gnomdex Web 2.0 would be bad? ;)
I made a small cartoon about it:
http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2006...
Bye,
Oliver
Well, I would argue that the party was a social event, Dave. Only, the agenda wasn't about enjoying "the company of friends". But I've never seperated "work" and "social" much, as any reader of my blog can tell.
From what my spies tell me, pretty much everybody there had their own business agenda for attending. Which was made it interesting.
There are plenty of sites that are actually making real money. The problem is we aren't talking enough about them. Instead we're talking about the froth.
I don't see a single session at this "new internet" conference about business models and how to increase your revenues. How to increase adoption? How to get outside the Techcrunch/TechMeme/Digg bubble.
And it doesn't even have a session on how to properly make rounded corner graphics. Heheh.
Frothy!
Sigh.
The way to get outside the bubble is to sell non-bubble products in the first place.
The problem is we aren’t talking enough about them. Instead we’re talking about the froth.
Well, agreed there. So talk about non-froth. :)
Business and revenue models, at an internet conference?? Surely you jest. But you are on the right track...in wanting that. :)
End Prog
whether you can actually HOST it.