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.
Somebody 'invent' a new chat service!
Gotta keep that bubble growing!
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.
For those not in venture capital circles:
crazy dynamite monkey
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)
The world needs fewer Facebooks, Twitters, Ubers and Tinders, not more. Let them all die.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Most startups valued at over $1 billion aren't really worth $1 billion.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[...] 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
If investors are seeing unicorns frolicking everywhere, Silicon valley has a dope ass medical-grade LSD supply goin on.