I rarely read TechCrunch anymore, and if I do, it’s due to some ridiculous headline that I see linked in my Twitter stream. It’s like passing a car wreck — you can’t help but stare. I spotted another one today.

It’s the last day of the Web 2.0 Summit, and apparently Sean Parker had some interesting things to say. Basically he thinks that Facebook, eBay, Twitter and Apple will “dominate the web” from here on out. And the one notable company that won’t? Google.

I will admit that Apple and Twitter are doing very well, and I’m quite fond of these companies. I guess I can begrudgingly admit that Facebook is doing well, when it comes down to numbers, not that there isn’t any hate going on. But Google? Not dominating in the future? I call bullshit.

To be fair, let’s take a look at a few other things Parker touched on. Maybe I misunderstood. According to his hair, he must be taken seriously.

Parker believes we’re shifting from the first phase of the Internet, which was dominated by what he calls “information services” — companies like Google and Yahoo. But next up to dominate the web will be the “network services” like Facebook and Twitter.

Wait. Wait, wait, wait. Mr. Parker, are you trapped in a five year timewarp? I won’t even mention Gmail and child, Gtalk, but what about this newfangled thing called Wave? I feel so embarrassed; I thought Google Wave was supposed to be a huge advancement in real-time communication, social networking and just possibly email’s replacement. My mistake.

To be clear, he thinks Google will stay huge and relevant, but it’s dominance will go down because collecting data is less valuable than connecting people, according to Parker that is.

Yes, I’m sure Google will stay huge, and even grow. I agree. After all, their acquisitions and investments are far and wide. But to merely consider them an “information service” is a bit insulting, don’t you think? I’m sure Parker’s own sizable investment in Facebook didn’t affect his comments. That’d just be silly.

I don’t know if Parker has been locked in a dungeon the past few days, or maybe just hasn’t been paying attention to the recent announcements at the Web 2.0 Summit he’s attending. Google penned a search deal with Twitter and announced a social search feature. Granted, Facebook made a deal with Microsoft for status updates a la Bing, but come on. It’s Bing.

Parker also talked a bit about why it’s not always the best products that win. Craigslist, MySpace, AIM and eBay all were poorly designed or executed, yet they did well. According to Parker, this was because their networks were strong enough to overcome their weak predispositions.

These are all bad products, yes. They all initially succeeded, but where are they now? MySpace is a shithole, AIM is seriously slacking in current active users, and Amazon is quickly catching up to eBay, who is stuck in Web 0.5. As for Craigslist, any complaints about the site have always been seen as largely subjective, at best. Its popularity seems to speak for itself.

People use the tools they have access to — even if they are poorly designed or executed, and this applies especially to new concepts. We quickly abandon and leave them to die as soon as light is shed on something far superior. The problem with these failures lie in the fact that they don’t adapt. It’s the simple concept of natural selection at work here.

Maybe Parker should spend a little less time looking pretty for the cameras, and a little more time brushing up on current events.

Image source and source.