Surplus of capital is a huge factor. Got numbers? When Peter Thiel started his class at Stanford, he spent the first couple of lectures reviewing the 90's. One of his argument to explain the dot com bubble was the influx of capital from around the world to the U.S., and ultimately to the valley. Could be the same here. not sure.
We are in a Bubble
31–40 of 98 posts
Re: We are in a Bubble
#32Startup.com http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0256408/
And then ask yourself if what happened then is anyway similiar to what is happening now.
For starters, I think you will realise that most startups circa 2000/1 were nothing more than litteral "thin air" -- compare that to the likes of Facebook who actually have revenues, hell, they even have a product.
I know that some of the valuation numbers being thrown about can be unreal, but I'd rather have a converation about whether FB is worth $1b or $10bn or $100b, instead of whether is has any value at all.
Re: We are in a Bubble
#33I am not interested in any of the "we are in a bubble" posts as much as I am interested in "What the fuck will happen when this bubble bursts!" I have been in tech in SV since 1997. I was here for the build, frenzy and pop of the last bubble. In 2001 I had a BBQ at my place - 50 people came and we ate and drank by the pool. Of those 50 - all tech workers - 4 had jobs. I was out of work for 18 months (6 of which I tra…
I have the same thoughts exactly. I was a junior at university when the last bubble burst so i have no idea what it was like. Currently i have been running my startup after quitting my job for almost a year and we are doing OK but this talk of bubble worries me because i dont know what to expect.
Will it only effect startups that are social types that dont exactly generate revenue but through capital injection( which i assume is what will evaporate the fastest during a pop) have the potential to become massive such as instagram etc or will it also effect the startups that actually do turn up a profit every month so that the founders can eat and re-invest their money back in the business.
When i try to draw parallels from 2000 from a technology stand point, i assume the bubble pop killed the tech industry because getting a startup of the ground required tons of cash, it didnt matter whether you could charge from day one or it was a great idea but needed to get to scale before you could make money, you still needed to buy servers, hosting and your development team was larger because there were no frameworks etc .. basically there was alot to spend before you could turn a profit, so when capital dried up so did the ability to start a new company or even continue to run an existing one. As a founder, unless you were already wealthy you could not bootstrap
Now with amazon, great frameworks that cut down development time many times over and other things of the like, founders can take savings of 10-15k and start a business that can return that investment maybe after 4-5 months and start making profit soon after.
The question is, do these kinds of startups still survive, could this be the differentiating factor this time if the bubble pops.
Maybe after the bubble pops we wont get those massive social startups that require millions of dollars worth of injection for a while but instead get many smaller bootstrapped business types that take a small investment and return a profit monthly that eventually grow into large business. Its slower but similar to more traditional businesses. If this is the case then i feel its OK, at least if we find an area there people still have a need and technology solves that need we can still make a living doing our own startup and work on things we love.
Im also interested because we are bootstrapped and we have managed to get our small startup to give us back about 60% of our salary that we used to get at our 9-5. its enough to live of and not make us wonder where we are going to get our next dinner, however we are thinking of starting something new because we feel there is a ceiling to what we can achieve with our current startup and its important for us to decide what startup to do next if we actually are heading into a bubble that may pop midway through our next project, 1,2 maybe 3 years down the line
What do you guys think the tech scene will look like in the valley and possibly around the world if such an event would occur again ?
Sorry for the long post but i thought it important to get ideas from the HN community on this topic.
Re: We are in a Bubble
#34I'm getting tired of hearing people claim we're in a bubble, especially when people cite the Instagram deal. Instagram didn't have any revenues? So what. The value of a company is whatever someone is willing to pay for it. Facebook's killer feature is their photo sharing. Given Instagram's surging popularity and mobile dominance, Zuckerburg saw Instagram as a threat, especially if Instagram fell into the hands of a c…
Re: We are in a Bubble
#35As a personal exercise please go and watch this documentary: Startup.com http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0256408/ And then ask yourself if what happened then is anyway similiar to what is happening now. For starters, I think you will realise that most startups circa 2000/1 were nothing more than litteral "thin air" -- compare that to the likes of Facebook who actually have revenues, hell, they even have a product . I kno…
It's probably going to go back and forth in cycles between overvalued and undervalued for a long time because no one really knows what the market value of an intangible digital asset is. Can anyone explain how much money the data in the Facebook databases are worth?
Re: We are in a Bubble
#36As a personal exercise please go and watch this documentary: Startup.com http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0256408/ And then ask yourself if what happened then is anyway similiar to what is happening now. For starters, I think you will realise that most startups circa 2000/1 were nothing more than litteral "thin air" -- compare that to the likes of Facebook who actually have revenues, hell, they even have a product . I kno…
The US property bubble had nothing in common with the Tulip bubble either. Tulips don't even pay interest but property paid rent!
Re: We are in a Bubble
#37As a personal exercise please go and watch this documentary: Startup.com http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0256408/ And then ask yourself if what happened then is anyway similiar to what is happening now. For starters, I think you will realise that most startups circa 2000/1 were nothing more than litteral "thin air" -- compare that to the likes of Facebook who actually have revenues, hell, they even have a product . I kno…
For a further personal exercise I would recommend reading the first half of "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" which gives some insight into early economic bubbles. I think the fact that things have changed so much since it was written allows you to easily see the things that don't change, namely the snowball effect of hype (madness of crowds).
Edit: The Tulip Bubble that meric mentioned is in the book. Really insightful stuff.
Re: We are in a Bubble
#38As a personal exercise please go and watch this documentary: Startup.com http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0256408/ And then ask yourself if what happened then is anyway similiar to what is happening now. For starters, I think you will realise that most startups circa 2000/1 were nothing more than litteral "thin air" -- compare that to the likes of Facebook who actually have revenues, hell, they even have a product . I kno…
Also he's right that now that Instagram was valued at $1 billion, we're already starting to see others like Square immediately looking to raise capital at huge valuations, just because Instagram was valued so high.
Besides, doesn't it even that even Facebook and others are valued based on how much more others will invest in it later on? That's pretty much how Facebook's valuation grew, and how they got the $100 billion IPO, too.
But isn't that a flawed philosophy? Shouldn't companies be valued based on how much potential for making money they have in the future, and not how much potential they have to attract more capital at a higher valuation?
Re: We are in a Bubble
#39It's time to move on from HackerNews and focus on building companies/businesses rather than talking about things that are not productive in any way or shape. Naysayers. Pessimists. Negative thinkers. "No man". Doomsayer. So long...
Re: We are in a Bubble
#40Instagram isn't a great example: it was already useful and successful and might well have been worth more if it had held on. GroupOn is a much better indication that a bunch of non-technical people are eager to buy overvalued tech stocks. Of course we are in a bubble. Not in the real estate bubble sense, mind you, but in the 1999 tech bubble sense. Tech and health care are the two industries actually growing. Right n…
Eh, if anything it's a counterexample, not evidence in favor of a bubble:
https://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:GRPN
(Zoom out to "all".) It closed today at 11.76. The official IPO price was 20, it peaked at just over 26. That's not exactly a stirring argument in favor of a generalized tech bubble.