3 ms·

Is a new tech bubble starting to grow?

7 points by edw519 16y ago

michaelcampbell 16y ago
Maybe it's just the news I happen to read, but I've read a lot of "bubble" stories recently, and almost every one brings up the pets.com sock puppet; I don't understand it. Was it just the most memorable (however irrelevant) icon of one of the biggies that happened to fail in that era?
- artmageddon 16y ago
  It's among the easiest to remember, especially since they had a very popular Super Bowl ad. Pets.com was among the first to go in the bubble, and their very, very poor business plan clearly shows why.
BerislavLopac 16y ago
"He says the enormous size of the social and mobile Internet market — tens of billions of people — dwarfs the markets for the fledgling Internet (billions) and personal computers (hundreds of millions), putting companies such as Facebook, Twitter and Zynga in prime position to strike it rich in IPOs." Hm, I'm glad to know that aliens are joining the social and mobile Internet market! :D
- wladimir 16y ago
  He's lost all sense of scale. If there's anything that should set off bubble alarms it's this kind of blowing things out of proportion.
michaelochurch 16y ago
Please, please, please don't use the word "bubble". Ever. Even if there is a bubble going on, and there's definitely not right now, don't ever use that fucking word with regard to technology. First of all, what we have now is something different. Getting venture capital is still incredibly difficult for most companies. As in, if you have a 4-person startup you'll probably have one or two people working full-time on the funding game, which puts significant drag on technical growth. Not fun. Moreover, most startups I know about describe a tension between true technical excellence (scaling, robustness, and correctness, all of which become critically important in the middle and end game) and chasing the more superficial features that appeal to VCs. Facebook, along with a few other startups that have capitalized on this bizarre and silly "social" fad, is probably overvalued. Everyday startups are still severely undervalued. It's a different pattern than the one in the 1990s. In the 1990s, people were absurdly optimistic not only about technology, but about the economy and society as a whole. People actually believed, in 1999, that society had permanently transcended the idiocy (um, wrong!) that characterized the bulk of human economics and social relationships throughout history. They were loopy. In 2011, people are dismal and depressed and anxious and only a few of the perennial optimists are starting to perk up (they were always there, but people are now listening to them again; I have no idea whether that's a good or bad thing for peoples' money, but if it's good for smart people with ideas, we must encourage it). Second, anything that pulls opportunity into the hands of the smart and ambitious, instead of the socially well-connected who usually monopolize it, must be encouraged, no matter what its financial implications are. Anything (except a war) that gives smart people a chance, which most of them haven't had for a very long time, must be encouraged.
- exit 16y ago
  your "first of all" case doesn't make an argument for "please, please, please don't use the word 'bubble'. ever." for your "second" case, you're saying resources can never be misallocated if they are allocated along college-admissions style meritocratic lines?
  - michaelochurch 16y ago
    I was perhaps being a bit brash in that post. I thought the intentionally satirical and bloviating nature of it would come through. Last night I wrote a 3,500-word essay on the massive upcoming conflict, in the United States, between the intelligent and the powerful. (I'm not going to spam HN with links to my blog, but it's my most recent post.) I guess I am still amped up on adrenaline from last night. This would require another discussion, but college admissions aren't very meritocratic. There are a bunch of crypto-racist so-called "character" criteria (note: the "right" extracurriculars are only available at rich schools) that were shoved into the process in the 1920 to '60s and have been let to stay there. I'm going to mostly ignore that line of discussion because it's going to be 20 or 30 years before I have kids of that age, and until that point, I don't really care in the least about college admissions. College admissions are less corrupt than politics or the news media, but not by much; the corruption is far less damaging, though, because it's never been that hard for a smart person to get accepted into a good school. (Prestigious schools can be very hard to get into, but we have 200 or so good schools, including most of those state flagships the Republicans want to kill, in the U.S. We have excellent colleges and universities in this country and that's a huge asset.) Do I think a forceful, tectonic reallocation of resources to smart people would give us a better world? Yes, absolutely. I won't go so far as "resources can never be misallocated" in a meritocracy, because that level of perfection is impossible, but I think we'd have a far better world with smarter, more creative, more visionary, and more compassionate people in charge, instead of the spineless, morally debased, and anti-intellectual corporate strongmen who currently hold most of the cards.
- jimboyoungblood 16y ago
  Everyday startups are still severely undervalued. If you believe this to be true, you should immediately invest all of your savings into startups. Second, anything that pulls opportunity into the hands of the smart and ambitious, instead of the socially well-connected who usually monopolize it, must be encouraged, no matter what its financial implications are. See above. Got your checkbook ready?
thekevan 16y ago
He says that companies are overvalued, and they may be. But the difference is we don't have the situation where everyone and their brother is buying those overvalued stocks left and right. Risk is very compartmentalized at the moment, mostly with professionals. There may be a bit of a bulge here and there, but I do not think it is a true bubble.
ZhannaSchonfeld 16y ago
Good old Useless Today, doing what it does best...being useless.

7 points by edw519 16y ago

Maybe it's just the news I happen to read, but I've read a lot of "bubble" stories recently, and almost every one brings up the pets.com sock puppet; I don't understand it. Was it just the most memorable (however irrelevant) icon of one of the biggies that happened to fail in that era?

artmageddon 16y ago
It's among the easiest to remember, especially since they had a very popular Super Bowl ad. Pets.com was among the first to go in the bubble, and their very, very poor business plan clearly shows why.

BerislavLopac 16y ago

"He says the enormous size of the social and mobile Internet market — tens of billions of people — dwarfs the markets for the fledgling Internet (billions) and personal computers (hundreds of millions), putting companies such as Facebook, Twitter and Zynga in prime position to strike it rich in IPOs." Hm, I'm glad to know that aliens are joining the social and mobile Internet market! :D

wladimir 16y ago
He's lost all sense of scale. If there's anything that should set off bubble alarms it's this kind of blowing things out of proportion.

michaelochurch 16y ago

Please, please, please don't use the word "bubble". Ever. Even if there is a bubble going on, and there's definitely not right now, don't ever use that fucking word with regard to technology. First of all, what we have now is something different. Getting venture capital is still incredibly difficult for most companies. As in, if you have a 4-person startup you'll probably have one or two people working full-time on the funding game, which puts significant drag on technical growth. Not fun. Moreover, most startups I know about describe a tension between true technical excellence (scaling, robustness, and correctness, all of which become critically important in the middle and end game) and chasing the more superficial features that appeal to VCs. Facebook, along with a few other startups that have capitalized on this bizarre and silly "social" fad, is probably overvalued. Everyday startups are still severely undervalued. It's a different pattern than the one in the 1990s. In the 1990s, people were absurdly optimistic not only about technology, but about the economy and society as a whole. People actually believed, in 1999, that society had permanently transcended the idiocy (um, wrong!) that characterized the bulk of human economics and social relationships throughout history. They were loopy. In 2011, people are dismal and depressed and anxious and only a few of the perennial optimists are starting to perk up (they were always there, but people are now listening to them again; I have no idea whether that's a good or bad thing for peoples' money, but if it's good for smart people with ideas, we must encourage it). Second, anything that pulls opportunity into the hands of the smart and ambitious, instead of the socially well-connected who usually monopolize it, must be encouraged, no matter what its financial implications are. Anything (except a war) that gives smart people a chance, which most of them haven't had for a very long time, must be encouraged.

exit 16y ago
your "first of all" case doesn't make an argument for "please, please, please don't use the word 'bubble'. ever." for your "second" case, you're saying resources can never be misallocated if they are allocated along college-admissions style meritocratic lines?
- michaelochurch 16y ago
  I was perhaps being a bit brash in that post. I thought the intentionally satirical and bloviating nature of it would come through. Last night I wrote a 3,500-word essay on the massive upcoming conflict, in the United States, between the intelligent and the powerful. (I'm not going to spam HN with links to my blog, but it's my most recent post.) I guess I am still amped up on adrenaline from last night. This would require another discussion, but college admissions aren't very meritocratic. There are a bunch of crypto-racist so-called "character" criteria (note: the "right" extracurriculars are only available at rich schools) that were shoved into the process in the 1920 to '60s and have been let to stay there. I'm going to mostly ignore that line of discussion because it's going to be 20 or 30 years before I have kids of that age, and until that point, I don't really care in the least about college admissions. College admissions are less corrupt than politics or the news media, but not by much; the corruption is far less damaging, though, because it's never been that hard for a smart person to get accepted into a good school. (Prestigious schools can be very hard to get into, but we have 200 or so good schools, including most of those state flagships the Republicans want to kill, in the U.S. We have excellent colleges and universities in this country and that's a huge asset.) Do I think a forceful, tectonic reallocation of resources to smart people would give us a better world? Yes, absolutely. I won't go so far as "resources can never be misallocated" in a meritocracy, because that level of perfection is impossible, but I think we'd have a far better world with smarter, more creative, more visionary, and more compassionate people in charge, instead of the spineless, morally debased, and anti-intellectual corporate strongmen who currently hold most of the cards.
jimboyoungblood 16y ago
Everyday startups are still severely undervalued. If you believe this to be true, you should immediately invest all of your savings into startups. Second, anything that pulls opportunity into the hands of the smart and ambitious, instead of the socially well-connected who usually monopolize it, must be encouraged, no matter what its financial implications are. See above. Got your checkbook ready?

thekevan 16y ago

He says that companies are overvalued, and they may be. But the difference is we don't have the situation where everyone and their brother is buying those overvalued stocks left and right. Risk is very compartmentalized at the moment, mostly with professionals. There may be a bit of a bulge here and there, but I do not think it is a true bubble.

ZhannaSchonfeld 16y ago

Good old Useless Today, doing what it does best...being useless.