Slashdot Mirror


Freshly Minted Unicorns Now a Rare Sighting In Silicon Valley (qz.com)

An anonymous reader shares a Quartz report: Unicorns, start-up companies valued at over $1 billion each, once a rare sighting for investors, have frolicked across Silicon Valley of late. Now the market seems to be yanking on the reins. Venture capital research firm CB Insights reports the number of venture-backed startups achieving a $1 billion or more valuation ground to a halt over the last six months. In the first quarter of 2016, only five new unicorns arrived. That's compared to an average of about 20 per quarter last year. The number of startups worth at least $1 billion has doubled since 2015 to more than 160, says CB Insights. At the same time, the number of such companies accepting "down rounds" or exits with lower valuations is now up. That number exceeded the quantity of new unicorns being created starting in the last quarter of 2015.

89 comments

  1. Quick... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Somebody 'invent' a new chat service!

    Gotta keep that bubble growing!

    1. Re:Quick... by NotInHere · · Score: 3, Interesting

      bubble

      Shhh its not to be called like that until it bursts!

      But really, if giants like calr icahn sell off their stocks, the burst is not far away, isn't it.

    2. Re:Quick... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      To be fair, Icahn sold off his Apple stock only partially because of the last quarterly report. The rest of the reason involves the fact that he was not getting his way with the Board.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:Quick... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

      I think their words were "Happy International Women's Day", and he started yelling his safe word, which happens to be "Sell!"

    4. Re:Quick... by David_Hart · · Score: 0

      To be fair, Icahn sold off his Apple stock only partially because of the last quarterly report. The rest of the reason involves the fact that he was not getting his way with the Board.

      Icahn also sold off Apple (AAPL) because he realized that no one fell for... believed that Apple was worth $1.4 Trillion ($240 a share). While the iPhone and other Apple products continue to sell, the lack of innovative products limits the upside. I think that it was more this than lack of traction with the Board.

    5. Re:Quick... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Icahn is a grumpy old man though. If a company he invested in doesn't make him enough money he sues it. Most of the rest of us instead say "you win some, you lose some."

    6. Re:Quick... by NotInHere · · Score: 1

      And he is rich, and you aren't.

    7. Re:Quick... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Doesn't mean he's right though. He's dumping on Apple not because he necessarily thinks Apple is going to tank, but because Apple isn't giving him enough control on the board.

    8. Re:Quick... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If a company he invested in doesn't make him enough money he sues it. Most of the rest of us instead say "you win some, you lose some."

      And he is rich, and you aren't.

      That is something to keep in mind whenever someone starts ranting about "welfare queens" or defending our aristocracy.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    9. Re: Quick... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, is a side of a coin it seems these days.

  2. mythical anyway by magarity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's this term "unicorn" in this context? Obviously not a mythical horse with a horn. Make it your habit to explain inside terms and acronyms when submitting summaries, please.

    1. Re: mythical anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They hate education. Hate education.

    2. Re:mythical anyway by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 2

      That should have immediately followed the term Unicorns instead of coming in sentence three. This was just poorly written.

    3. Re: mythical anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They be so stupid.

    4. Re:mythical anyway by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Make it your habit to explain inside terms and acronyms when submitting summaries, please.

      A unicorn in venture capital is a company that reaches $1B in valuation, either in the run up to and/or after the IPO.

    5. Re:mythical anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      What's this term "unicorn" in this quote>context? Obviously not a mythical horse with a horn. Make it your habit to explain inside terms and acronyms when submitting summaries, please.

      Furthermore, what's the significance of the first word in TFS ("unicorns") being underlined and a different color?

    6. Re:mythical anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kim Jong Un says : "hey guys, North Korea has a whole cave full of unicorns"!

    7. Re:mythical anyway by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 1

      A "unicorn" a delusion from licking too many hallucinogenic frogs in Silly-cone Valley.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    8. Re: mythical anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mods haven't given a damn about this site for nearly a decade. Republican crap now always gets modded upward.

    9. Re:mythical anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn you Republicans are morons.

      I resent that. I'm a staunch Democrat, have been so all my life.

    10. Re:mythical anyway by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I actually think linking to the wikipedia page is the correct way to handle this, it doesn't bog down those that know the term.

      Though maybe it was edited, because it's defined in the sentence now too.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    11. Re:mythical anyway by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      A "unicorn" a delusion from licking too many hallucinogenic frogs in Silly-cone Valley.

      That's Santa Cruz. You may have better delusions by licking the banana slug instead.

    12. Re:mythical anyway by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Since nobody else really answered the question, it refers to the "b", which some people apparently think looks like a little unicorn head. As in $1b "valuation". I suppose that's more politically correct than calling the boners, which is what the company founders get when they think their company is worth $1b.

    13. Re:mythical anyway by Livius · · Score: 1

      And, like the unicorn of mythology, the valuation is fictional.

  3. Not the mythical beast / carraige configuration by decipher_saint · · Score: 2

    For those not in venture capital circles:

    a unicorn refers to any tech startup company that reaches a $1 billion dollar market value as determined by private or public investment

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
    1. Re:Not the mythical beast / carraige configuration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Investments" are like warrants now. You can say you have a million bucks, but don't have to show it. Ahhh, the miracle of derivatives... even the paper margins are running at .1%

      I can hardly wait for the big bang when faith collapses into the black hole..

  4. WTF is a Unicorn? by guppysap13 · · Score: 4, Informative

    In case anyone else was wondering, a unicorn is a start-up company valued at over $1 billion.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn_(finance)

    1. Re:WTF is a Unicorn? by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Aptly named because there are so few of them people claim to see and typically turn out to be nothing more than fanciful imagination.

      Look at something like Twitter which was one of those companies and had a huge IPO valuing the company at tens of billions of dollars. They've never really been able to make money and the stock has continued to dwindle over the months. Many of the unicorns are like this, valued far in excess of what they can actually hope to profit. Everyone thinks they're buying the next Google, but most of it is just hype driven by the early investors so they can cash out during the IPO.

      Get a service, get millions of users, and get the fuck out before it collapses.

    2. Re: WTF is a Unicorn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VA Linux was another. It even owned Slashdot for a time. That was esr's accidental millionaire phase.

    3. Re:WTF is a Unicorn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to read the first sentence of the summary...

    4. Re:WTF is a Unicorn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's almost like an editor added that link after he posted this!

  5. Thank God, who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The world needs fewer Facebooks, Twitters, Ubers and Tinders, not more. Let them all die.

    1. Re:Thank God, who cares by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

      Fragmentation is a pain. What it needs is something that rolls all of them together. That thing is systemd.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:Thank God, who cares by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      One daemon to rule them all. One daemon to find them. One daemon to bring them all and in the darkness, bind them.

      Is systemd the one daemon to rule them all?

    3. Re:Thank God, who cares by tombak · · Score: 1

      I agree, but when thousands of top notch engineers lose their jobs, its not good for anyone. Tech wages will become stagnant and finding a job becomes harder. Right now there are 12000 former intel employees that you have to compete with when you want to get a new job.

  6. Does that make Elizabeth Holmes a centaur? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...

  7. VC has simply wised up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gone are the days of throwing money at promises with nothing behind them. Mostly gone anyway.

  8. I'm confused by this summay by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

    Are there less just popping up at over 1 billion, but there are more valued at 1 billion? Are they saying that more companies are refusing venture capital until they're worth more?

  9. WTF is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That summary is just a bunch of manager or money-person talk. I have no fucking clue what this about, at all.

  10. I can't wait for this bubble to burst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I can't wait for the current bubble to burst. It has been the worst thing to happen to the computing industry in a long time, and it hasn't been good for society at large, either.

    These days the computing industry is merely just an extension of the marketing/advertising industry. An insane amount of effort and talent has been put into collecting private information as aggressively as possible, and then using that to force highly-targeted advertisements on as many people as possible as often as possible. Social media is a great example of this. And we'll likely see the same thing happen with virtual reality, if it goes anywhere.

    San Francisco has been decimated by this bubble. Its economy is extremely distorted. The cost of living is extremely out of whack, forcing out many long-time residents. Some have moved away, but others have ended up in the streets.

    Social media, which is mainly headquartered out of the San Francisco area, has resulted in a virulent form of leftism being forced on the entire world. The whole "social justice" phenomenon is an example of this. Despite all of the their talk about "tolerance" and "equality", we've seen "social justice" supporters use social media as a weapon to suppress free though that doesn't match exactly with their rather intolerant and inequitable ideals.

    As practitioners in the computing industry, we've seen things go to hell. We're stuck dealing with absolutely terrible programming languages like JavaScript, Ruby and Rust, which have set us back decades. We're dealing with inherently broken NoSQL database systems that excel at losing or corrupting data. We've even seen Linux ruined, thanks to GNOME 3 and systemd. Web browsers today are less-usable than they were in the early 2000s. Web design has become a farce, and the Slahdot Beta is a great example of this. Large segments of the industry, mainly driven by the Millennials/Hipsters out of San Francisco, decided to throw away decades of knowledge and experience for no good reason at all.

    The faster this bubble bursts, the better. The first dot-com bubble at least brought us all some benefits, such as the widespread availability of the web. But this latest bubble has brought most of us nothing but problems and ruin.

    1. Re:I can't wait for this bubble to burst. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      The first dot-com bubble at least brought us all some benefits, such as the widespread availability of the web.

      The availability of the web began in 1995. It would have happened whether or not people threw money at startups with business plans written on napkins in 1999, 2000 and 2001.

    2. Re:I can't wait for this bubble to burst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Social media is the new social disease for sure, but we also had smart phones, vastly improved networking, an awakening in cyber-security, etc, etc. Flatly wishing for a collapse of a tech bubble throws the baby out with the bathwater, not to mention a lot of people out of work.It would probably force me into (way too) early retirement.

    3. Re:I can't wait for this bubble to burst. by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2

      Nah, it isn't the bubble that's damaged SF. It's the government of SF which has made it possible.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    4. Re:I can't wait for this bubble to burst. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JavaScript

      Is fine for what it does: being a lightweight scripting language to do cool shit on a website. "LOL JAVASCRIPT ON THE SERVER!" is a terrible idea, but you nerds didn't come up with a suitable alternative in time, so Imma say making you deal with node.js is fair.

      Ruby happened because you loons kept harping about OOP.

      Rust, I don't even know, nobody I know is even talking about it as more than a joke.

      We're dealing with inherently broken NoSQL database systems that excel at losing or corrupting data.

      MySQL, only a few short years ago, was legendary for data corruption and loss. If you're running any database in production and not regularly testing data integrity, taking backups, and testing backup integrity, get the fuck out of this entire industry.

      We've even seen Linux ruined, thanks to GNOME 3 and systemd.

      Fair enough. Gnome has always been an abomination, and systemd... While I don't buy into the blind seething rabid memery of Slashdot, there's enough seriously wrong with it and its direction to make even professionals worry.

      Web design has become a farce

      Endless scrolling needs to be dragged through the streets naked, pelted with small hives of bees, and then publicly executed by driving several thousand thumbtacks into it, one at a time.

      Large segments of the industry, mainly driven by the Millennials/Hipsters out of San Francisco, decided to throw away decades of knowledge and experience for no good reason at all.

      I do find it hard to argue this, because I've seen dumbass hipsters write their own database connectors over and over again, when they're using a language that's had solid connectors for this decade and more.

      At the same time, a lot of this is crap. Re: JavaScript, I keep hearing greybearded dumbfucks whine about Java every time web applications come up. Java is shit. Name me one web-based application (banking, vpn, your server's iLOM/etc. interface) that isn't complete, slow-as-snailshit, bug-ridden drizzly cum. You can't. Because Java is fucking shit.

      I hear bullshit about the cloud. Yeah, protip, it _is_ cheaper to throw a few EC2 servers up than it is to buy, account for, and run a subpar box from Dell. "OH NOEZ MAH DATA!" - Backups, motherfuckers, do you speak them? "MUH HAX" - Become competent. Maybe you wouldn't have been outsourced to the cloud if you were.

      Abloobloo DevOps! Maybe if you actually did your jobs instead of pretending you were BOFHs, developers wouldn't have needed to stick their dick into deployment. Keep cracking jokes about lusers, though, while I script you out of a job.

      And ultimately:

      San Francisco has been decimated by this bubble. Its economy is extremely distorted. The cost of living is extremely out of whack, forcing out many long-time residents. Some have moved away, but others have ended up in the streets.

      Have you priced homes in the most boring parts of California recently? It isn't just SF, and it has nothing to do with the tech industry.

      Californians, upon the whole, are dumbasses. They treat the state as if its some sort of transcendence of humanity and insist everyone should live in California. Then they bitch when people move to California. They bitch about all the people and how things were better back in the day, but they insist on bringing illegals in by the truckload. They whine about jobs, then proceed to hurl rocks at the nearest Google bus and tax businesses to the point where companies are fleeing to Texas. They harp about housing prices but will crucify anyone trying to develop new homes. They complain about government spending, but will mindlessly vote for anything with a tax increase - you could float a measure not only requesting but requiring every last Californian to kick a live human baby into a pack of feral dogs on a monthly bas

  11. April fools? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's almost may. WTF is this summary?

  12. it was always a bubble, one long bubble sense 1999 by johncandale · · Score: 1

    The bubble never went away, the run away growth companies can be counted on one hand, google, twitter (still not profitable), facebook, Instagram. Most companies that 'made it' just got bought out by google or facebook. All other companies were profitable from before 1999 and had traditional business growth funding and plans or are broke.

  13. Just in case by kamapuaa · · Score: 4, Funny

    In case anybody's wondering what a unicorn is (the summary doesn't make it clear), a unicorn is a bisexual person, usually but not always female, who is willing to engage in sexual activities with a couple, without demanding or doing anything that might cause problems or inconvenience to the couple.

    --
    Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    1. Re:Just in case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha, you nearly got me, You'll be asking me to believe in a republic president next to.

  14. Newsflash! by SecurityGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most startups valued at over $1 billion aren't really worth $1 billion.

    1. Re:Newsflash! by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Not really a news flash to anyone.

      Most companies, not just startups, valued at a billion, aren't. There are only about 2000 companies in the world that can turn that profit.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  15. VC Valuation != Worth by tomhath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The number of startups worth at least $1 billion has doubled since 2015...At the same time, the number of such companies accepting "down rounds" or exits with lower valuations is now up

    Some venture capitalist making a long-shot bet on a start-up doesn't make the company "worth" anything. Valuation is a completely meaningless term in the absence of revenue and net profit to support it.

    1. Re:VC Valuation != Worth by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Something is worth what people are willing to spend on it (at least, in our economic system.) Normally a business might be evaluated on what it can make (revenue and profit). But that's not always that case.

      And if people are willing to buy 10% of something for 100M, then I think you can make the excellent case it is worth 1B (Well, I think you can make an excellent case it is worth something close to that.)

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:VC Valuation != Worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Revenue and net profit are completely meaningless to valuation. There are two types of valuation to a company, and those are the book value and the market value. Book value is simply shareholder equity (from the balance sheet), and Market Value is simply the value of the outstanding shares of stock, also called market capitalization.

      Neither of these values is determined in any direct way by net profit or revenue.

      I love that investors like you exist, because the more of you there are, the more money I make off of your misconceptions about how the markets work.

    3. Re:VC Valuation != Worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are two types of valuation to a company, and those are the book value and the market value.

      Those both describe one way of establishing a "value", but there are other and much better ways. A VC trading cash for stock is neither book value nor market value unless the VC gets all of the stock, because one person making a bet doesn't mean anyone else will go along with that price. It sounds like you are a speculator rather than an invester.

    4. Re:VC Valuation != Worth by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Warren Buffet would disagree. But then, what does he know about investing?

    5. Re:VC Valuation != Worth by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      Revenue and net profit are completely meaningless to valuation.

      You say that like you're explaining something, when you're really just illustrating the problem.

    6. Re:VC Valuation != Worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the problem is yours. You're taking "valuation" as a common term referring to how much a business is worth in the absolute sense. "Valuation" is the term used for determining how much to invest in each funding round. If you're not investing or an employee shareholder, the term is meaningless. It's based far more on the future sell-price of companies than potential revenue. There's nothing problematic about that.
      Taking "valuation," as you do, is like conflating what a Physicist refers to as time in many equations with the general phenomenological experience of time.

    7. Re:VC Valuation != Worth by ranton · · Score: 1

      Warren Buffet would disagree. But then, what does he know about investing?

      What part of what he said disagrees with Warren's viewpoints in the article you linked to? Warren tries to estimate the company's intrinsic value, which is not bound to the net profit or revenue of the company today. While I certainly agree he is more risk adverse than your average VC, which is probably a good thing, but he certainly is not bound to simplistic measures of a company's worth.

      I don't think Warren would invest in a company with virtually no book value but a much higher market value, but that doesn't mean he ignores that intrinsic value exists.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    8. Re:VC Valuation != Worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the link GP provided. The "value" of a company is a function of it's earnings, not it's stock price alone (especially if the stock price is inflated by a VC investment).

      Buffett focuses on return on equity (ROE) rather than on earnings per share. Most finance students understand that ROE can be distorted by leverage (a debt-to-equity ratio) and therefore is theoretically inferior to some degree to the return-on-capital metric. Here, return-on-capital is more like return on assets (ROA) or return on capital employed (ROCE), where the numerator equals earnings produced for all capital providers and the denominator includes debt and equity contributed to the business.

  16. That Many? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It used to be over 20 per quarter? What are all these companies doing?

    1. Re:That Many? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It used to be over 20 per quarter? What are all these companies doing?

      Dating websites, of course. Spread the diseases and women wonder why decent men do not want anything to do with the whores. Sorry I meant liberated feminists not whores.

  17. Not legally worth a billion by Alomex · · Score: 4, Informative

    Most unicorns aren't. Think of the following car analogy deal. Suppose I sell you car for $10K, but we add a clause saying "a long time ago I lost a valuable engagement ring in the car. If found the sales price goes up to $100K".

    Would you think it legit if I were then to turn around and issue a press release announcing that I just sold you car for $100K?

    Similarly with unicorns nowadays, presently they all have this clause that if their business turns out not to be very successful (which is the case in 9 out of 10 startups) the VC ends up owning the whole thing and hence the price was actual cash exchanged (usually around $200-400 million). Then there is a clause saying that in the unlikely event that the company turns out to be wildly successful (i.e. the ring is found), then said $200-400M gets the VC only 20%-40% of the company.

    Companies have announced these deals via press release declaring themselves to be worth a billion dollars and thus a unicorn. This is a misrepresentation of the facts, and indeed if the company had to be valued, say for the purposes of a divorce (not that this happened to me :p ), the probabilities of each outcome would be considered and the company would be given a sub-unicorn valuation.

    1. Re:Not legally worth a billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Your problem is that you are trying to apply horse sense to unicorns.

    2. Re:Not legally worth a billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel like your analogy is poor.

      The $200M an investor puts in is for a 20% stake (which is where the $1B valuation comes from). The investor is valuing the company at $1B (sales/profits/users are all factors) so that makes it worth $1B. The fact that the investor may be overvaluing the company and their own exit strategy are pretty much irrelevant.

      If I want to buy a 20% stake in a $10k car, I'm going to give up $2k. If I overvalued the car tremendously (say, it was only a $1k car), that's on me. But I don't blame the seller for saying that they sold a $10k car.

    3. Re:Not legally worth a billion by Alomex · · Score: 1

      You don't get it. The contract says that if it turns out the car is overvalued (which in this case is the likeliest scenario) then you get to own a whole more of it. So no, effectively you didn't pay $2K for 20%, in all probability you paid $2K for 80%.

  18. Grandpa needs his meds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This post would have been better if completed with a couple "get off my lawn you young whippersnappers" spliced in somewhere. I'm still looking for a generation that didn't think the next generation was screwing up everything.

    1. Re:Grandpa needs his meds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now how is your response to the parent even remotely constructive?

  19. Judging by their business plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the fact that most of these were "unicorns" in the first place completely baffles me. No plan to profit? Check. No revenue stream? Check. Lots and lots of users who will immediately leave if you try to monetize? Check. Shit, it's even *worse* than sell at a loss, make it up in volume of the late 90s.

    And goddammit I'm jealous I haven't gotten my billion.

  20. Top of the social mobile IoT cloud bubble, finally by ErichTheRed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For those old enough to remember Bubble 1.0, Bubble 2.0 is lasting a lot longer. The effects are still the same:
    - Massive over-emphasis of the importance of advertising and data-mining
    - San Francisco / SV housing market distortion taken to a whole new level (no NYC this time though)
    - Investments in crazy companies/ideas, although it's a little more grounded in reality this time
    - Loss of talent to social media companies, same as during the stock bubble when the investment banks grabbed all the smart people

    The thing that appears to be different is not as many IPOs - the strategy now seems to get bought by Facebook, Google, Microsoft or some other company and cash out that way. I'm all for innovation and stuff, but when absolutely every new startup is "Tinder for nurses" or "Airbnb for pilots" or yet another iteration on an app that's easy to push ads through on a smartphone, there's a bubble afoot.

    One thing that's keeping these unicorns alive that didn't exist the first time around is The Cloud and "DevOps" as far as IT is concerned. Bubble 1.0 meant massive build-outs of networks and data centers, and therefore a huge pile of eBay trinkets after it popped. Now, every new company is just using a credit card to buy AWS or Azure time month to month and can survive much longer on a VC investment.

  21. Meaningless valuations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Here's what makes a company a "unicorn".
    Some not-too-bright VC agrees to put $10 millions in for a 1% stake. The company now gets "valued" at $1 billion.
    Truth is, until you find somebody willing to buy the company for a billion dollars, it isn't worth a billion dollars.
    The stock market logic that consists in pretending that every share of a company is worth what the last buyer paid for his is a total fantasy.

    1. Re:Meaningless valuations by DidgetMaster · · Score: 1

      I agree. Until a company has its shares on the open market, and the total market evaluation stays above $1B because lots of people are willing to buy the shares at the current price and the existing shareholders won't sell for anything less...then is it really isn't worth a billion? If existing owners are not dumping their stock because they know it is overvalued, then the value is more likely real.

  22. Unicorns not as rare as I might think. by ngc5194 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I presume the reason startups with a $1B valuation are called "unicorns" is because they're ostensibly rare, but if we were seeing 20 new ones each quarter in recent years, I propose "raccoons" would be a more apt name.

    1. Re:Unicorns not as rare as I might think. by friesofdoom · · Score: 2

      I thought they were called unicorns because they are mythical and your friends think you're dumb if you believe in them.

  23. Re:Top of the social mobile IoT cloud bubble, fina by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    [...] the strategy now seems to get bought by Facebook, Google, Microsoft or some other company and cash out that way.

    That strategy haven't changed at all since the dot com bust. Except this time around the focus is to build a new app and get bought out by Facebook.

  24. Re:it was always a bubble, one long bubble sense 1 by afidel · · Score: 1

    Amazon, ebay, Angies list, Shuterfly, Netflix, Priceline, they're all still around

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  25. Re:Top of the social mobile IoT cloud bubble, fina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two major reasons data mining doesn't work.

    1. They aren't interested in what the numbers say. They want numbers to manipulate into saying what they want them to say. Then, when it still doesn't work, they can blame the numbers instead of their own bullheadedness.

    2. If some product is known to be popular or necessary, they can jack up prices until it squeezes out all other items. Data mining does nothing to help the items that get squeezed out, which would be the majority of vendors. Or it creates a LCD, where nothing else can gain enough of a foothold to get produced, and thus sales from people who don't like the LCD are lost completely.

  26. u r dumb. by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    What's this term "unicorn" in this context? Obviously not a mythical horse with a horn. Make it your habit to explain inside terms and acronyms when submitting summaries, please.

    God, you are dumb. WTF is wrong with you? The bloody definition is right there in the first motherfraking sentence. Let me quote it and put in bold for you. I could try to spell it with kindergarten letter cubes while singing a Barnie's or Elmo's song, but I am not sure if that would register through that dumb skull of yours.

    Unicorns, start-up companies valued at over $1 billion each, once a rare sighting for investors, have frolicked across Silicon Valley of late.

  27. Re:Top of the social mobile IoT cloud bubble, fina by ndykman · · Score: 2

    I think the another factor that is keeping this going for longer is that unlike the first dot-com boom, everybody has computing power and network access. In the first dot-com crash, it quickly became clear that access to the internet outside of SV was very small, and fewer people even had PCs (outside of work) than expected, and it all fell apart with only a few left with the funding and user base to continue on.

    It did spark this next bubble though. There was such a massive investment in networking infrastructure for a perceived demand that came much later than expected.

  28. Sucessful bubble it companies , unicorns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thats virgin on the ridiculous!

  29. Bubble IT companies , billions of $ , unicorns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we are vigin on the ridiculous here

  30. Unicorns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suppose the distinction from narwhals has become easier over time.

  31. Re: it was always a bubble, one long bubble sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    amazon was around wayy before 1999, so was ebay and netflix. Angies list, Shuterfly, and Priceline are not runaway billion doller companies.

  32. The next great Gold Rush? by seoras · · Score: 1

    Well it was a hell of a ride from the early 90's over the past 20+ years.
    We've had a series of landscape changes from the PC era through the internet era and the recent smart phone era.
    The tectonic plates of technology seem to have stopped moving for now.

    As PC's became boring commodities so too are smart phones, the app gold rush is over.
    This weeks results for Apple are a clear indicator of that.
    Same happen to Cisco back around the turn of the millennium, the switch and router market matured and Cisco's stock price has never recovered.
    Cisco, back in the late 90's, was for a period the world's most valuable company by market cap, as has been Apple.

    All the excitement right now seems to be around automobiles.
    Which, let's face, it have been begging for a shake up and disruption for decades.
    Gold rushes never seem to appear where the crowd is focused though so maybe that one is too obvious.
    Where ever the next one is it isn't online, on your mobile or your desktop/laptop computer.

  33. wtfy by untoreh+ · · Score: 1

    Why such unicorns would fill in the bubble? Isn't venture capital supposed to be risky? Its not like you are buying stocks.. so the market is not affected... also why companies like fb and ggl and ntflix would be part of the bubble? Because they are generating profit that isn't there?

  34. LSD by rosshalz · · Score: 1

    If investors are seeing unicorns frolicking everywhere, Silicon valley has a dope ass medical-grade LSD supply goin on.