3 ms·

> If you honestly think the current Silicon Valley looks anything like 1999, you don't understand what happened in 1999. When you chew gum, you don't blow the

> If you honestly think the current Silicon Valley looks anything like 1999, you don't understand what happened in 1999. When you chew gum, you don't blow the exact same bubble every time, do you? Some are bigger, some are smaller. Some pop sooner, some last longer. Some make more of a mess when they pop, some make less of a mess when they pop. I participated in the tail end of the first bubble, and while there are absolutely differences, some meaningful, I think it takes some effort to ignore the many meaningful similarities.

area51org 13y ago
That's presuming this is a "bubble" at all. It's not; the data doesn't support what you're proposing. That, or every time any single ridiculous transaction (or rejection) happens, we have to call it a bubble. Let's get serious here. SnapChat refusing $3 billion, while ridiculous, does not at all compare to the masses of VC cash going to thousands of companies with no idea about how they were going to make money at all. If you must compare them, compare them by scale. Today, we have a small handful of companies getting a lot of attention because of questionable financial dealings (whether it be IPO or the refusal of cash). In the '90s, the differences were much larger (presumption that putting "Internet" in front of any business idea would automatically mean IPO and great riches), and the number of businesses involved was much larger. That is why there is no bubble. When there is an actual bubble, I'll be more than happy to call it out. Some are bigger, some are smaller. To qualify as a "bubble," doesn't it have to involve a large segment of the industry, not just a handful of companies?