4 ms·

All the analysts were saying similar things in 2000... the field is misunderstood, there are great transformative forces at play, you needed to subscribe to our

by theoj 16y ago

All the analysts were saying similar things in 2000... the field is misunderstood, there are great transformative forces at play, you needed to subscribe to our new theories about how things work to understand everything, etc., etc. These valuations are naive projections of future growth -- most likely these firms will reach constraints on future growth.

wladimir 16y ago
Yes, it's all the same, but this time it's different! Really! And every time, people believe it.
mkr-hn 16y ago
'99: a .com needed a team of engineers and a big expensive server to try a new idea '11: one guy, one weekend, and a day's pay for a cloud service to try a new idea There are legitimate fundamental differences between then and now. Think about how many people toss up a weekend project for review here on HN that would have been a huge team effort back then. I'm not saying I can see the future (like a lot of people tried to then), but it doesn't seem as hazardous this time around.
- theoj 16y ago
  Yes, you can "try" an idea in a weekend, but it's only going to be a rough sketch, not a polished experience. You still need a team and months/years of effort to bring it up to the next level so it can get the billion dollar valuation. How many weekend projects have billion dollar valuations? Edit: In reply to mkr-hn whose comments I cannot reply to for some reason... I believe that this thread was about a bubble and billion dollar valuations not weekend companies worth much less.
  - mkr-hn 16y ago
    I'm not talking billion dollar valuations. I'd rather have a thousand million dollar companies than a few worth billions. A weekend sketch can be enough to get that team.
- rapind 16y ago
  By that logic you could say more thought had to go into ideas in the first net bubble since the costs were higher.
  - sabat 16y ago
    You're overestimating the "logic" used by the MBAs who drove the '90s dot-com bubble. The costs were higher, but cash flowed easily from VCs back then, as well.
silverbax88 16y ago
Actually, that's not exactly true. Remember the term 'irrational exuberance'? Alan Greenspan wasn't talking about how everything was peachy keen, and that was well before the implosion.

by theoj 16y ago

wladimir 16y ago

Yes, it's all the same, but this time it's different! Really! And every time, people believe it.

mkr-hn 16y ago

'99: a .com needed a team of engineers and a big expensive server to try a new idea '11: one guy, one weekend, and a day's pay for a cloud service to try a new idea There are legitimate fundamental differences between then and now. Think about how many people toss up a weekend project for review here on HN that would have been a huge team effort back then. I'm not saying I can see the future (like a lot of people tried to then), but it doesn't seem as hazardous this time around.

theoj 16y ago
Yes, you can "try" an idea in a weekend, but it's only going to be a rough sketch, not a polished experience. You still need a team and months/years of effort to bring it up to the next level so it can get the billion dollar valuation. How many weekend projects have billion dollar valuations? Edit: In reply to mkr-hn whose comments I cannot reply to for some reason... I believe that this thread was about a bubble and billion dollar valuations not weekend companies worth much less.
- mkr-hn 16y ago
  I'm not talking billion dollar valuations. I'd rather have a thousand million dollar companies than a few worth billions. A weekend sketch can be enough to get that team.
rapind 16y ago
By that logic you could say more thought had to go into ideas in the first net bubble since the costs were higher.
- sabat 16y ago
  You're overestimating the "logic" used by the MBAs who drove the '90s dot-com bubble. The costs were higher, but cash flowed easily from VCs back then, as well.

silverbax88 16y ago

Actually, that's not exactly true. Remember the term 'irrational exuberance'? Alan Greenspan wasn't talking about how everything was peachy keen, and that was well before the implosion.