3 ms·
That's exactly what I was thinking when I read this. I like vercel as a technology but am always baffled by these sorts of valuations in the sense that I just c
by seanhunter 2y ago
That's exactly what I was thinking when I read this. I like vercel as a technology but am always baffled by these sorts of valuations in the sense that I just can't imagine a future where they have enough profit from Saas revenue to earn that out in any feasible amount of time. I guess people are assuming that they get snapped up by someone like Heroku was bought by salesforce, but that was for <$250m which is a very different proposition from $3.25B.
- fakedang 2y agoHeroku was once a unicorn, and was touted to be a 100B SaaS at one point.
- pjmlp 2y agoAnd now everyone misses the good old days from Heroku.
- jokethrowaway 2y agoIt was valued by hobbyists and small companies spending relatively little money (albeit a significant amount for the resource provided). Heroku had excellent DX, it was an experience similar to working in a mid-large company with a working CI/CD pipeline and an infra team. But even 50-100 people companies can afford to have an infra. There was never a lot of money in Heroku imho. Same for Vercel
- rchaud 2y agoThe methodology of startup valuations is completely opaque, so it's in the interest of VCs to claim the highest possible number, because why not? Everybody putting in money is NDA'd up to here and they're certainly not going to upset the apple cart by broadcasting skepticism about the 'valued at' number. WeWork was worth $50bn when only VCs could look at their numbers, and $10bn when the S-1 came out.