Data is big. By that, we mean that there's not only a lot of data, but handling all that data is a problem that everyone from small businesses on up to the big boys, like Google and Facebook, has to tackle in one way or another.

To help with the problem of handling Big Data, Dealmaker Media has announced a group of startups that it says are "providing answers to all your database problems in unique and innovative ways."

"Scaling databases is a hard problem," writes Dealmaker Media Community Manager Clare Jacobson. "In fact, both Google and Facebook have had to build their own solutions to avoid buckling under today's online and data-thirsty society."

Companies that can't build their own solutions, writes Jacobson, are left "looking to innovative startups to provide scaling solutions."

So, what companies did Dealmaker pick for their collection of data-as-a-service recommendations?

1. Akiban 
2. Clustrix
3. Hadapt
4. Nimbus
5. RethinkDB

If you find yourself, like so many other companies, unable to handle the data deluge, then one of these five companies may be able to save you from developing your own solution. The full blog post offers more details on each of the companies.

"Entertainment-lawyer-turned-VC Dennis Miller of Spark Capital warned that there are already investors who are becoming “roadkill” and there will be more roadkill ahead. George Zachary of Charles River Ventures generally agreed that there aren’t a lot of Google-like opportunities in video now that will pay mega-dividends to early investors. Instead, Zachary thinks the money isn’t in the content but in the social networks that are built around content.

Mike Hirshland of Polaris Venture Partners was more optimistic about the possibility for at least a few companies to reach the critical mass needed to really take off — and to pay off for VCs who’ve taken a chance on them."

Other NewTeeVee Live coverage on last100:

• NewTeeVee Live: Brief Q&A with YouTube’s Steve Chen
• NewTeeVee Live: Can the network cope with Internet TV?
• NewTeeVee Live: VCs predict an uncertain future for Internet TV startups
• NewTeeVee Live: MTV exec proposes antidote to piracy
• NewTeeVee Live: AT&T’s vision for IPTV

Fighting Free With Free

Clearly, this is also a program that is meant to create more goodwill towards Microsoft in the developer community. For a lot of tech startups, running Windows is often not even a consideration, as they are already building their software on top of free software anyway. As Om Malik points out, the idea of using Microsoft software often didn't even cross his mind when he started his business.

It is good to see that Microsoft is trying to gain some market here. However, it seems that Microsoft is trying to fight the free software movement by giving away its own programs, while a lot of developers prefer software that is not just free, but also open source.

I learned some new terms too - like "vomiting in the data center" :-)

Interesting to note that Scott has a new startup called Ookles, while his old company Feedster is busy doing damage control over at TechCrunch. Incidentally, Feedster does have a point when they say their business is RSS-based and so it's not quite the same as Technorati - something we went over back in July 2005 when I did my own Alexa charts damnation post. All the same, I think Feedster would help their cause if they promoted some of the business arrangements they have - e.g. didn't they do a deal with AOL in June last year? What's the latest on that and other RSS-based business that Feedster does?

"Sponsors are paying thousands of dollars for space that we're giving to Showoffs for free," wrote event producer Francisco Dao. "If you're a startup who wants exposure, there's no reason not to throw your hat in the ring."

Showoff startups will be selected by a panel of five judges, including Tubefilter co-founder Brady Brim-DeForest, investor Neil Patel, PR 2.0 publisher Brian Solis, Mixergy founder Andrew Warner, and venture capitalist Mark Suster.

Interested startups can apply on the Twiistup website.

Aspiring kiwi startups are invited to apply to be part of the TV show. The TV series will select 10 startups and put them through 3 months of challenges.

As reported on the NZ Herald, Start-UP Media says the focus is on finding startups with an international focus:

"We're looking for companies with an international focus from day 1. The minimum entry requirements will be that they will have a product in development or beta phase however we may make an exception for someone that has an exceptional idea supported by market validation."

We here at RWW fully support the notion of Web innovation and success happening on an international scale. While the hub of Web technology is still Silicon Valley, this TV show aims to encourage aspiring kiwi entrepreneurs to make the first step - and the best of them will be promoted over in the Valley.

As for which American Idol judge I will be... I think it's fair to say I'm not nasty enough to be Simon Cowell. I'd like to think I'm not the other extreme either (Paula), so I guess that makes me Randy Jackson! I like Randy, so I can live with that ("it was pitchy for me, dawg"). The other judges are Tim Norton from PlanHQ (an online business planning startup) and Rod Drury from Xero (an online accounting app with global ambitions).

Let me explain: Most of the time, when a startup goes after venture capital, they're still in the process of building a product and bringing it to market. They need things like servers, developers, marketing tools and sometimes office space. Do they need money per se? Or is capital an increasingly arbitrary and unnecessary step in building a tech startup?

We are all familiar with the idea of trading equity for funds through angel financing and venture capital; we're also familiar with the TechStars and Y Combinator programs that help to incubate and accelerate startups through minuscule amounts of capital and significant amounts of mentorship.

But most of us are less familiar with models such as Mike Trotzke's SproutBox or Marcus Whitney's Remarkable Wit. These firms provide services (and sometimes keeping-Ramen-on-the-table amounts of cash) to early-stage startups in exchange for equity. They provide development, marketing and other services that most tech startups need without delving into the complicated issues of valuation and funding rounds. These guys are focused on the absolute bottom line of technology, which has nothing to do with money: Making a great product and finding people to use it.

So, we're interested to know from our friends in startups who aren't taking the bootstrapping route, given the choice between pure capital or business-building services, which would you choose? Take the poll, and let us know the reason behind your decision in the comments. We'll be following up soon based on the results.

Of course, the resulting list is a lot of self-serving posts from startups hoping to cash in on Scoble's influence, but frankly, I don't care. I'm obsessed with this thread and the startups that keep appearing there, minute by minute. It's startup Disneyland! And if you're an early adopter itching to try new services, you should check it out, too.

"Last year when I had lunch with him he invested in Flipboard, which went onto be Apple's favorite iPad app of the year. Got something you want to get in front of him? This is your shot. Stealth startups preferred."

Well, that's one way to unveil the stealthy startups in hiding!

At present, the answer summary includes the following:

• Appysnap! - www.appysnap.com
• CollabraCam - world's first multi-camera video production iPhone app with live editing and director-to-camera communication, www.collabracam.com
• Cursor - www.ThinkCursor.com (and the first Cursor community, www.RedLemona.de)
• Filmaster - the ultimate video recommendation engine for new releases (local theatres, TV, VOD), www.filmaster.com
• PlayMySong - iPod app, www.playmysong.net
• Semiautomatic Semiotics - 3-d immersive bicycling, http://semiautomatic3d.com
• Spot for iPhone - Instapaper for Places, www.spot-app.com
• turntable.fm
• Virlnet - Virlnet allows businesses to reward the grassroots efforts of social network users for promoting their brand, www.virlnet.com
• Wanderfly - www.wanderfly.com - travel recommendation engine
• Zaarly
• Zferral - www.zferral.com
• Zipongo - diet and exercise tracking, www.zipongo.com

But this summary is incomplete. There are now 42 answers on this post and counting. I want to try them all! And if you're also dying to test out (or at least sign up for) some new services, stealthy and otherwise, this is one thread you should follow. Be warned, though: Quora is often labelled a "time sucking" service, and this thread is a prime example as to why. Be sure to have a few minutes to spare before clicking through!

Also, Quora? Please unblock my IP.

What I like about the Crunchies is that it's all about startups and innovation. We're aiming to recognize things that are important to startups - web innovation, best bootstrapping, best use of viral marketing, and so on. There are also product type categories - e.g. mobile, video.

So how can you participate?

1) Nominate your favorites

Starting today through Wednesday, December 12 at midnight pst, nominate the companies and products you believe most deserve industry recognition for achievements made in 2007.

2) Vote on finalists

The Crunchies Committee will choose five finalist companies for each award category based on the nominations submitted by the community. Voting will start Monday, December 13 and will be open for approximately one month (just give us enough time to engrave the awards).

3) Join the ceremony!

The Awards Ceremony will take place on Friday, January 18 at the Herbst Theater across the street from City Hall in San Francisco. It's an elegant, old world theater with 900 seats that will help give the awards the air of importance we believe they deserve. Seating will be reserved for finalist companies and event sponsors. A limited number of tickets will be available for press and the general public. Stay tuned for more details on the evening festivities.

So start nominating the startups you think deserve recognition; and feel free to use the comments of this post to shout them out - or promote yourself even, but you may want to give some reasons ;-) You can also grab a badge from here to promote the event.

"...I think the talent wars will be good for cities outside of the Valley, as companies look elsewhere to find smart people. It's already possible to stay connected and contribute from almost anywhere in the world."

He mentions my New Zealand-based blog as an example of how people as far away as the other side of the planet can contribute. I'd like to add that I actually earn my living as a consultant/contractor for various Silicon Valley companies - even though I live in New Zealand. I do analysis, research and writing work on Web 2.0, Social Media and RSS topics.

Dan also said that "we'll see an increasing number of important startups based outside of the Valley over the coming few years." Again, I think this is a trend to watch out for. Not only in big countries like China, but in very small countries like my own. I'm certainly keen to create and participate in Web 2.0 opportunities from my part of the world. You only need to look at a company like NZ-based Eurekster, creator of Swikis, to see that it can be done.

On that note, recently Nat Torkington from O'Reilly set up a Google Group for New Zealand Web 2.0 people, called NZ 2.0. Ironically this was instigated after Silicon Valley's Mike Arrington referred a local kiwi company to me, which led me to send a group email to a bunch of kiwis, which led to Nat creating the Google Group. So if there are any kiwis reading this who want to be part of NZ 2.0, shoot me an email (readwriteweb AT gmail DOT com). It's all happening Down Under! :-)

"What do Beanie Babies, Pez Dispensers and troubled Internet companies have in common? They're all for sale on eBay."

eBay has become known as a quick and easy way to sell your startup, should you need to. Techcrunch has a nice phrase for this - the "eBay exit". USAToday notes that "more than 10 dot-coms" have recently put themselves up for auction on eBay. The paper says that Search engine DigForIt.com sold for $25,400 this month and SynapseLife, an online calendar and organizational site which Techcrunch wrote about, sold for $60,000 (it opened at $50k). Also Read/WriteWeb covered the eBay sale of Talkr in February this year, which sold for $50k all up. There are many more instances of ebay exits we could list. And there are other places where startups can sell themselves too, like SitePoint Marketplace (Josh Catone noted in January that Blogster went that route).

Indeed USAToday also recounts the tale of CrispAds auction, which unsuccessfully tried to sell on eBay. It had a minimum price of $90,000, but ended up without any bids. According to USAToday, months later the company sold via a broker for "a few hundred thousand dollars".

If you're one of the many companies recently to have sold on eBay, let us know in the comments how you felt the process went. Should other entrepreneurs look to eBay, or is a private brokerage sale the best bet?

"...I miss the days of 2004 when the class that includes Flickr, del.icio.us and others started. They really were about changing the web, not making a quick buck (they did so only because they added value). There are companies still out there like them. Twitter is one I believe takes this approach. Automattic (the company behind Wordpress) appears to be another. Dave Winer also shares this spirt. He creates services like NYTimes River because it's fun and he thinks it will add value to our lives (and he is right).

However, most of the rest of today's net startups are only after the almighty dollar and while that's capitalism, it saddens me because it has done little but breed hubris."
Emphasis ours

It'd be easy to agree with Steve on this. Indeed in my wrapup of the recent Web 2.0 Summit, I said it was 'steady as she goes' and lacking in innovative startups. Other than the semantic apps that presented at the Summit, there was little evidence of disruptive technologies. It was still a well-organized and enjoyable conference, but the cutting edge was absent.

But even considering the Web 2.0 Summit and 2007 so far, I'm inclined to disagree with Steve that the Web is being over-run by "the almighty dollar". There is innovation happening - and enjoyment. The Mobile 2.0 Conference I attended recently in San Francisco showed me there's a lot of innovative technology happening in the Mobile Web space. The shift to the Web of many big companies is also exciting (as is the experimentation with desktop technologies by online organizations). Partnerships are happening between web 2.0 startups and big tech companies. Social networks are showing signs of truly opening up (although slowly). Semantic apps are set to go mainstream. Utility computing is coming in a big way. Alternative search engines are nipping at Google's heels. There are opportunities for entrepreneurs in Attention, Intention and VRM businesses. Use of the Web for environmental and non-profit purposes is at an all-time high.

I could go on and on, but my point is that the Web is still changing - despite the seeming lack of new innovative startups (maybe we as bloggers just aren't uncovering enough of them?) and the 'steady as she goes' Web conferences. So I do push back on Steve's post in that respect. There's a lot of change happening on the Web; actually that is what Read/WriteWeb is all about, documenting and covering that change.

But tell us what you think, in the poll below. Are we, collectively as startups, organizations and media, still changing the Web? Also, please use the comments below to list startups or initiatives that you think are changing the Web.

Image: Brouhaha (Jonathan)

While our readers' responses were pretty evenly split, the split between startups that seek capital first far outweigh those that seek to make equity-for-services deals. Also, the number of VC firms (well in excess of 700 in the U.S. alone) is far greater than firms offering services or a mix of cash and services.

Are we just too used to capital? Are "venture services" firms still too new? Why don't we have more services-for-equity programs?

"You need money to buy services, and most of the time, since you do not know where exactly to shop, you overpay or pay for something you do not need," wrote commenter Marfi.

Commener Jorge made a good case for mentor-driven accelerators when he said, "Just getting the cash won't get me some good mentors[...] The main reason why startups need cash is because the model is either not clear or not set to work in the short term[...] Just cash ins't enough unless you're an experienced entrepreneur."

Power commenter Warren Bendetto spoke to the sometimes arbitrary nature of valuation, saying, "When you're starting out, you really have no idea what you'll need. You base your anticipated amount of capital you need to raise based on assumptions and guesstimates that are 99% bullshit.

If you're lucky, you'll raise too much money[...] So you buy servers you don't need, you hire too many people, everyone gets 36" double LCD monitors, and your kitchen has a vending machine that spits out free MacBooks.

That's all fun, until you realize that you gave away 80% of your company in exchange for the funding. By the time you realize that you could have raised less and kept more equity, it's too late."

Salient points, all.

So, what is it about the magic and allure of VC that keeps startups pitching for more funding when they might be better served to take services instead?

Chris Wanstrath, founder of the bootstrapped and profitable GitHub, was in the to-VC-or-not-to-VC panel I moderated at SXSW yesterday. When I asked him if he'd ever considered taking capital to get his business up and running, he said that he absolutely hadn't. He had instead chosed to make business deals, strategic partnerships that would allow him to get the goods and services he needed without being financially dependent on others or having to give up equity.

In that panel, I asked audience members in the packed room how many were currently considering seeking or were actively trying to secure capital for their startups. Between 80 and 90 percent of folks indicated that they'd be making the rounds on Sand Hill Road.

I wish I'd had the chance to ask them if VC was still their preferred option after the panel was over. It seems now that there are more options and alternatives for smart, lean startups to get further with less reliance on the complicated and sometimes predatory business of venture capital.

As for why there aren't more venture services firms in existence, some have said it's because getting the capital to run a VC firm is a heck of a lot easier than building the infrastructure to offer startups mentorship, office space, and other business-building services.

Do you think there's enough justification - both in terms of demand from startups and in terms of return on investment for firms - to warrant more of this new breed of startup support? We'd appreciate your thoughts in the comments, particularly if you're involved in the VC/startup ecosystem.

What could other incubators offer to compete with that? Leading competitor TechStars had its sprawling network of mentors, more locations around the country and greater reported satisfaction by some past participants. They didn't have the same kind of money to offer, though. Today, TechStars made an announcement that went a long way towards closing that gap.

TechStars emphasizes that their fund's diversity of investors should be a key consideration for startups looking at the money that these two competing incubators can offer them.

According to today's announcement:

"This additional funding will allow TechStars companies to stay focused on making progress during the three-month program instead of spending that valuable time on early fundraising in order to make ends meet. It's also enough funding to entice a broader spectrum of would-be entrepreneurs to consider TechStars. This funding comes from a wide swath of the venture community nationally which means that TechStars companies will now enjoy tremendously broad support from a large number of investors that are each vested in their ultimate success, while avoiding the signaling problems associated with taking money from a single venture fund or investor."

This seems consistent with the general contrast between YCombinator's concentrated star power and classic hero's tale of young, hungry shoot-for the stars startups vs. TechStars' older, outside-the-Valley diversity of experience.

Which approach is better? Time will tell and both appear to be working well. It's nice for startups to have options though and it's fascinating to see how competitive the world of helping grow startups is becoming.

Check out the whole set of slides below, for an overview of Mobile Web startups and big company activity (e.g. Google acquiring GrandCentral in July this year):

Note: for a full-page view, go to the Slideshare page and then click "full" in the bottom-right corner.