Belatedly catching up with the news that apparently its now official - there is no profit in Web 2.0 and social media isn't a licence to print money.

Isn't Web 2.0 a bit like rock bands, one or two become superstars, a few can earn a living at it, but the majority have to grow up and go and find proper jobs in the real world. (unlike Spinal Tap, alongside, who made a living from sending it up).

• The FT kicked things off with this piece
• Hugh McLeod captures the 10 Things I Hate About Web 2.0.
• Monster has shut its social network
• And of course the final nail in the coffin - once EU politicians start getting involved it simply can't be cool any more
• Personally, I like Ron Shevlin's more constructive idea, to hang around Twitter until all the fashion victims leave, and then the service will become decent again

Did anyone really think those start ups were all going to make money?

Of course there is a difference between the success of Web 2.0 and social media technologies, and the ability of the companies pushing them to actually make any money.

I seem to remember first time around a few dotcoms soared, the majority faded, some crashed, and it was the established businesses which rather more slowly, applied the technology to grow their existing businesses (hence Tesco, Britain's biggest retailer, then later became Britain's biggest online retailer).

What chance the same sequence of events?