Talk:Dot-com bubble

message: Dot-com, Dot-com boom, Dot-com bubble, Dot-compost.  One sign of a great thinker is the ability to synthesize. Wouldn't one article be better? Barely surviving after the Dot-com bust, yours, Ortolan88 12:08 Jul 30, 2002 (PDT)
:Please write it, O Great Thinker! --Ed Poor
Believe it or not, I am not prone to hog in on other people's territory.  If these hang around awhile without much change, I might do it, but not when they're so fresh and new.  I wrote to stimulate the anonymous author to thought.  I'm miles behind on Huckleberry Finn and Knots, just to name two.  
If I ever get another job, wikipedia is in the weeds! Ortolan88
 your problems are Obama's problems  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.163.209.189 (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Older comments

message: I always thought the dot-com bubble started with the Netscape IPO in August 1995 and ended when the markets peaked due to the concerns about the Microsoft Anti-trust ruling in April 2000.  Granted, the actual start and stop of the dot-com bubble are fuzzier than that, but these two events nicely frame this period.  Most named time periods are usually delimited well defined events.  Perhaps the article should place more emphasis on these two events?
* I would agree with this to some extent but the bookends are probably more 1997 - 2000, beginning with the famous Greenspan warning against "irrational exuberance" in late (November) 1996.  Somehow the Telecom Bubble and the dot-com bubbles are being merged in human memory and recall... One was still riding high when the other peaked and crashed.  They were separate events with separate repercussions.  Stevenmitchell 12:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bookends

message: This article could use a couple additional sections.
# the business "theory" of the dot-com boom: mindshare is everything, physical assets and experience are irrelevant; old-economy companies are obsolete; technology is inherently marketable; growth is more important than profits, etc.
# the aftermath: mass layoffs (with security guards); empty office space; domain name buy-ups; return to traditional business wisdom (can be integrated with the "Secondary effects" section)
I'd love to write them myself, but I was way out on the fringe of the boom. So I didn't see these events closely enough to write confidently. Gazpacho 02:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New sections

message: What is meant by "battleground of intergenerational warfare"? warfare between the execs and the employees? between the tech employees and the operations employees?
"digital sweatshops / slave-driven" / underclass: the boom had a "programmer-hero" myth that made it seem worthwhile to put extraordinary effort into a company. There was the sense that your work was going to change the world, and that as a small company employee you had to make sure you pulled your weight. Certainly after the capital dried up, managers got a lot more serious about pushing employees past their limit, but that was the aftermath rather than the boom itself. The article could also use a mention of the use of stock-based compensation to avoid paying a full salary. Anyway, the three terms listed need to go; they're a mockery of real slavery and people who work in real sweatshops, as opposed to air-conditioned cubicles with web access and padded chairs. Gazpacho 07:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have toned down the disputed section, hopefully without changing the intended meaning of the original contributor. If you feel that fixes the problem, please remove the disputed tag. If it does not fix it, then try making the required edits yourself (or be more specific about the nature of the problem and I will come back to it). mydogategodshat 17:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Work section

message: I wanted to suggest this here before editing the article:
*Removing MSN - its just a subsidiary of Microsoft.
*Adding Hotmail - although it is also a subsidiary of Microsoft, it was founded as an independent company and later sold to them.
*Add ICQ (Mirabilis) maybe?
-- Chuq 9 July 2005 08:43 (UTC)
:ICQ does not run on a domain name idea, as "dot com" in this case implies. Dot com refers to the world wide web and its http protocol more than to any other protocol.
:By the time of the dot-com bubble bursting, Hotmail had been owned by Microsoft for nearly three years. For these reasons, I oppose the suggested changes. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was created during the bubble forming, I think it counts.  Maybe it also counts because of why it was bought by Microsoft... --CCFreak2K 09:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successful dot-coms 

message: Probably a sentence or two linking to Celtic Tiger would be appropriate in some section. The dot-com bubble was quite linked to some of the Celtic Tiger runaway growth in Ireland in the late 1990s.
I'm not sure where to add this such that it follows in context from other text. In fact, there doesn't seem to be much about the worldwide effects of the dot-com bubble, other than noting the 3G licences nonsense in Europe.
Incidentally, after about 3-4 tighter years (2003 was grim and gloomy in the IT job market), the IT boom has come back in Ireland thanks to Google and Amazon (and the fact that many thousands of IT jobs, at Dell, Intel, IBM, Analog Devices, etc., never went away).
zoney ♣ talk 15:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celtic Tiger 

message: What about Altavista, Lycos, Excite, and Ask.com, all of which have either failed to grab, or more recently lost, market share. Would we count these into the dot-com bubble, or is their demise a later development not suited for this article? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The could-have-beens

message: * Support Dot-com bubble appeared to be essentially a short lived article that Stock market bubble is today. It is my belief that this article makes more sense discussing the Dot-com (stock market) bubble, and can discuss the Dot-com phenomenon and companies within. Skybunny 01:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I'm reading articles like this http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FGI/is_7_14/ai_106651520 that keep talking about the Telecom Bubble like it was bigger then the Dot-com bubble.  Is it detailed at all in wikipedia? Mathiastck 18:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Telecom Bubble 

message: Although Youtube is a well-known dot.com company, it really has nothing to do with the subject of this article - the dot.com bubble. Wouldn't it be better if the section at the end was a list of notable dot.coms from the bubble era, both successful and failed? Venicemenace 01:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing to note - this article is not about dot-com companies in general, and never was. It is about the dot-com bubble, so, I agree, it should be specific to the era. I'm going to try to change the section title and point people elsewhere if they want to add 'MySpace' and whatnot. Skybunny 17:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youtube? 

message: Why is 'bubble' not in the terminology? 
I assume were not talking about a bubble made of fairy liquid and water... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.8.97 (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is. The very first paragraph says The Dot-com bubble was a speculative bubble...which explains what a 'bubble' is in this context. Skybunny 17:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: Does a nickname like that really belong in an encyclopedia? At the very least, it seems very unprofessional in the article: "(aka the DOTPOCOLYPSE)". 65.19.65.85 18:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dotpocalypse? 

message: As IB (which didn't even use the name at the time, it was CarsDirect.com) was privately held through the dot.com bubble and survived, I don't really see why it's listed.  I'd suggest the list be limited to a) dot coms that IPO'ed and went bankrupt by 2001 and b) dot coms that were sold at high prices by 2001. Jpatokal 08:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List in general and Internet Brands in specific 

message: There is no such thing as Bubble 2.0, the idea of mentioning the Bubble 2.0 as a established fact is a clear mistake and it is misleading
BBC's quoted article: "Has the dotcom boom returned?"
However, there are a number of differences between the first internet boom and the current one, not least the fact that the companies that survived - such as eBay, Yahoo, and Amazon - tended to dominate their market niche. "
"The second key difference with the late 1990s is that companies now have a model of how to make money from the internet - and that model is based on advertising."
"Finally, the role of the stock market is very different in the current boom. "
Business Week article: Bubble 2.0? 
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2006/tc20061108_556422.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily
"Venture investments in Web 2.0 companies certainly aren't high enough to push funding back to bubble levels"
The Financial Times article: Bubble 2.0?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c81136ba-f747-11db-86b0-000b5df10621.html
"With no such wider ramifications, the current boom could well be just another of the periodic waves of euphoria that washes through Silicon Valley. It is the sort of boom-bust cycle that locals face with remarkable equanimity"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by EconomistBR (talk • contribs) 06:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's mistake to mention Bubble 2.0, at most should be '''Bubble 2.0?'''

message: I think that the section of notable dot-com companies should include VA Linux, who went public on December 9, 1999, opening at $30 and closing at $320 on that same day.  This was and is the most "successful" IPO to date, and it is the pinnacle of what dot-com IPOs attempted to achieve.  Of course, the company lost almost all its value shortly thereafter and was at $0.54 by July 24, 2002.  The Wikipedia article on VA Linux calls this "a classic example of the dot-com stock market bubble", so I think it's appropriate for inclusion here.  As someone who lived "through" the dot-com bubble, VA Linux was as I remember it the "straw that broke the camel's back", and highly relevent to this article.
118.90.1.169 (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  VA Linux 

message: I added a link documenting Warren Buffett's forewarnings about the bubble. No big deal, but I think it's fair to mention that at least one highly qualified investor saw the bubble for what it was. L'omo del batocio (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the proposal was not moved per discussion (non-admin closure). PeterSymonds | talk 16:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warren Buffett 

message: What is the logic of redirecting from worst websites to this article? ~ thinking-ape ~ (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Worst websites

message: "The Dot-com bubble crash wiped out $5 trillion in market value of technology companies from March 2000 to October 2002."
Bubbles don't crash, they burst.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.11.41.80 (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mixed Metaphor

message: This article is innacurate. There was a dot-com Crash about 1999- or 2000.  I was there; suddenly everyone wanted cellphones and our  (Harris DTS)landline switches weren't nearly as desirable.  There was a huge lay off with us and others doing telecom work, like Fibre Optics, etc.  Be fair and mention this. If there had been a "boom" in 1999-2000, I'd have been working a few more years.70.171.235.197 (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dot com Crash

message: copied from the article:
:Tina Landrith-Mills: I developed my first Internet Company in 1997, OTVnet.com which later became Digital Bridge through acquistion. OTVnet was the first Union Internet Company signatory with the I.B.E.W. under the sound and communication agreement. I sold OTVnet and later started IAMTECH.com which built dot com business and was acquired. I then went to work at a dot com in the Silicon Valley called Charitableway.com which failed. I believe we are on the verge of a second dot com era and believe in there are lessons to be learned from our first attempt at dot coms. I am interested in helping collect these records of our history that sunk over night like the Titanic. There were many great ideas that off the ground in venture capital financing and these ideas lay dorminant like a patent waiting for the market. Please visit http://www.webmasterhistory.com to leave your dot com record and tell us  of your experience.
CRETOG8(t/c) 23:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  See webmasterhistory.com 

message: Many of these dot.com companies were in the San Francisco Bay Area and Silicon Valley.  There is no discussion of the local social impact, or a local perspective.  Would this be an appropriate addition to this article?  I don't see any discussion of the social impact, generally.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleshne (talk • contribs) 18:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Local Impact and Gentrification 

message: "The low interest rates in 1998–99 helped increase the start-up capital amounts."
It seems like interest rates were relatively high during 1998-99 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data/Annual/H15_PRIME_NA.txt).  This statement needs elaboration.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.174.181 (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bubble Growth, further explanation needed. 

message: Why not a section on advertising?  All the dot-com bubble was about websites selling ads.  That's it.  Nothing else.
There was no "high-technology" involved.  There was no 'lofty' aspirations of PhD or M.Sc. intelligentsia creating fantastic new science.
No, it was base, animalistitc private enterprise:  advertising.
That's what the dot-com bubble was all about.  Entrepreneurs pretending that they were all into programming and C++-coding and all that crap ... but in reality, it was all about the same old crap that the mercantile system has been pushing for 2,000 years:  advertising.
Sales.  Marketing.  Promotion.  Snake-oil salesmen.  "A sucker born every minute."
All the crap and garbage about websites and coding and scripts and CSS style-sheets and all that malarkey ...
... it  means nothing.
All that it means is to sell advertising.
Ok?!
'nuff said.
Thank you.
--Atikokan (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to re-read the article again, (and the references). FFMG (talk) 11:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising 

message: Government was higly affected.Economies collapsed  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.226.21 (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pros and Cons 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dot-com bubble. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110927065603/http://www.isp-planet.com/news/freei_bankrupt.html to http://www.isp-planet.com/news/freei_bankrupt.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: hey guys, it seems much of the companies significant to the bubble 
section is plagiarised from this book.
cheers. Spencerk (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dot-com bubble. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120106045040/http://www.imaa-institute.org/statistics-mergers-acquisitions.html to http://www.imaa-institute.org/statistics-mergers-acquisitions.html#TopMergersAcquisitions_Worldwide
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927065603/http://www.isp-planet.com/news/freei_bankrupt.html to http://www.isp-planet.com/news/freei_bankrupt.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130606215432/http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_14/b3675112.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_14/b3675112.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201075305/http://www.xcelera.com/investor4.html to http://www.xcelera.com/investor4.html#q2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is there any reason to have this list? There's no refs and no reason given for why these people are on the list. Volunteer1234 (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted it. Maybe someone could write a prose section about the important people? Volunteer1234 (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individuals significantly affected by... 

message: According to the second paragraph, “the NASDAQ composite stock market index rose 800%, only to fall 740% from its peak by October 2002.”
That’s impossible.  Even if the index had fallen to 0 (which I’m sure didn’t happen), the percentage reduction would have been only 100. Giwolde (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The stated percentage drop doesn’t make sense