Dave Winer points to my post about Portals 2.0 and questions if there are really only 3 powerful Internet companies:
"Richard MacManus talks about The Big 3, and there is a trend to think about three companies -- Google, Microsoft and Yahoo -- as the leaders in online. But I don't think that really works, because well, there are three more that are probably just as powerful as the others, but in different ways."
In the comments it emerges that Dave was referring to Amazon, eBay and Apple. Personally I think a good case could be made for eBay, but I don't see Amazon or Apple as being in the same league.
Dave McClure, also in the comments of Dave's post, came up with a ranking system:
"Tier 1: Google, Yahoo, Microsoft Tier 2: eBay, Amazon, Apple Tier 3: AOL, IAC/Ask, NewsCorp/MySpace
actually, i'd say AOL is Tier 2.5, but will either partner/merge with a Tier 1 within another 3-6 months."
That'll get the anti-A-List crowd squarking! But when it comes down to it, I agree with Dave McClure's tier ranking.
One main caveat is that the ranking of Internet companies is very much dependent on the era we're in - and is subject to rapid change. For example, I'm currently reading a book called 'There Must Be a Pony in Here Somewhere: The AOL Time Warner Debacle and the Quest for a Digital Future', by Kara Swisher. The book is based in the era when AOL was Tier 1 and maybe even the numero uno Internet company. One story from that era was that AOL tried to buy Yahoo! for $2 million in around 1995 - but was rebuffed. How times change!
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2554
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
Who cares about ranking the top X? I don't. A far more interesting discussion would be had by trying to figure out which of the multitude of relatively tiny Web 2.0 startups is going to survive on its own to become the next GEMAYA members... if any.
Posted by: Paul Montgomery | November 11, 2005 6:23 PM
I would like to see a ranking of Gemaya, Apple, IACI, Newscorp etc.. on a financial basis - which ive been to do but had no real reason to professionally looking at,
1. Market Capitalisation incl P/E ratio
2. Revenue
3. Profit
4. Growth Rate
5. Other Non-Financial Measures incl Unique Users, Registered Members, Demogaphic Reach (eg MySpace-teens) using discounting/premiums etc based on revenue and whether it is diversified, advertising vs subscription vs enterprise plus other assets eg media, ISP, hardware, mobile/portable etc
I personally think any A-List has definitely got the 3A's in it : AOL, Amazon, Apple (and throw Newscorp on the B-List for pure online, but A-List given its other assets plus huge :
- AOL has Timewarner, ISP business (but no confidence and no board support)
- Apple has a business and growth potential google would die for : Apple is the real Operating System threat to Google, hello... Imac, Ipod, Video Ipod, Nano, Podcasting, No Viruses, Ipod/MP3 domination - and a lower market cap (eg $50B) which means it deserves more of a run..
- Newscorp : Look at their unique user growth and media assets... and focus on teens vsmart
- Amazon not on the Alist is a joke..
- IACI : What a ecommerce intermediary plus more powerhouse
One problem with blogging is it becomes so subjective people dont even worry about financial analysis, like any analyst would do on these companies... unless of course the debate is about comparing whether a company is 1.0 vs 2.0 or whether it should be a 2.0 of itself rather than a 2.0 of an early moving competitor.. ala the om, pareyk etc discussions yday.. which made sense but one part of the non-product non 2.0 debate is sheer financial analysis.. time to pull excel out !
http://benbarren.blogspot.com
Posted by: Ben Barren | November 11, 2005 8:27 PM
Hmmm... this is a good web 2.0-focused site. So far the web 2.0 companies being mentioned are mid-big caps. Are there any small cap plays on web 2.0?
Posted by: terence chan | November 14, 2005 1:31 AM