Slashdot Mirror


At Least $1.48 Billion in VC Funding Has Gone Up in Smoke This Year as the List of Dead Startups Grows (businessinsider.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: We're halfway through 2017 and already a group of startups that together raised $1.48 billion have shut down. Some of these startups are: Beepi, the website that brought together car buyers and used-car sellers, shuttered in February. Quixey, a mobile search engine that was able to crawl apps, laid off most of its staff at the end of February. Yik Yak -- the anonymous social media app that was at the center of several college harassment scandals -- announced its closure on April 28, after struggling to keep users on its platform. Maple, a New York City-based food delivery service, closed down on May 8. Sprig, a San Francisco-centric service that delivered high-quality meals on demand, made its last delivery on May 26. Hello was the company behind the Sense sleep tracking sensor, which was designed to sit in users' rooms, rather than on their wrists. It closed in June after failing to find a buyer. Jawbone was a pioneer in wearable devices, with a focus on fitness trackers and portable speakers, but it struggled to pay its vendors.

166 comments

  1. Good! by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

    The hookers and illegal drug companies need to make a living too!

    --
    I tend to rant.
    1. Re: Good! by aaronb1138 · · Score: 1

      Speaking of which, can we get a meter for Kickstarters which fail with statistics based on category of Kickstarter, amount paid, and peer projects success / failure.

  2. A fool and his money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the saying goes.

    1. Re:A fool and his money... by sycodon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just call it the Rich paying their fair share.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    2. Re:A fool and his money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rich insure their investments. They know in advance the possible downsides, and if they're clever, they can rig an insurance deal that pays for itself. Thus the rich will make money no matter what. Maybe they won't make as much money if the start-up fails, but they will make enough to go to the club and laugh about it with their rich buddies.

    3. Re:A fool and his money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They know in advance the possible downsides, and if they're clever, they can rig an insurance deal that pays for itself.

      Yep, just ask Larry Silverstein.

    4. Re:A fool and his money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call this "trickle-down economics".

    5. Re:A fool and his money... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      So the dead startup owners... what do they do? Take the cash & pay off their debts? Or take the cash & blow it on something, & tell the VCs after the fact that the cash is gone?

    6. Re:A fool and his money... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      It is traditional to use the last million on coke and whores.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    7. Re:A fool and his money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly Sycodon , you gorgeous man , that not only includes the dumb rich but the likes of you and me too. We pay for this shit through irresponsible banks , pension and investment funds run by fund managers who get paid whether they win or lose and when they win pass the loses onto you without you even knowing it. When they win , ha ha , sucker!

  3. Paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like TRUMP! FAKE!

  4. Risky? by freeze128 · · Score: 2

    Is it just me, or does investing in a startup seem more like gambling?

    1. Re:Risky? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      Is it just me, or does investing in a startup seem more like gambling?

      It's not just you. That's exactly what it is. It's just a little more complex and time consuming that going to a casino.

    2. Re: Risky? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But with much better odds of winning.

      The stock market is just a casino for the rich.

    3. Re:Risky? by EndlessNameless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Normal gambling is a zero-sum game.

      There is a set pool of money between the players and the house, and that money is redistributed within that group---generally in the house's favor.

      Investment is a non-zero sum game, but it is very risky. Between this and the real-world consequences, it is quite different in spite of a superficial similarity.

      That said, only risk-takers would find either gambling or VC investment appealing.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    4. Re:Risky? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is sorta, but your odds are better because the payoff is greater. In the casino you never come out ahead, in startup game you only need to succeed one out of 10 times, and you make a profit.

    5. Re:Risky? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the equivalent of roulette for idiots with way more money than they ever deserved. It's the game of chance you play when you're a spoiled Arab trust-fund asshole who has already bought his requisite fleet of luxury supercars and can't physically support any more gaudy gold chains or diamond rings. It's all the rage with the "Spend $20 million to remodel a bathroom when you only shower once a week" oil-rich crowd living in countries that are one oil crash away from going back to the fucking stone age where they belong.

    6. Re:Risky? by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

      numbers work out to 5/10 you will lose your money, 2-4/10 you will break even or make a small profit when they go public or get sold and the last one you will make all your profits on when it IPO's and becomes the next MS, Google, or facebook or SalesForce

    7. Re:Risky? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends. If you go in knowing full well that 99% of them fail... and lets say you seed $1m into say 500 of the most promising ones (very vague guesstimate---doesn't have to be right, just slightly better than tossing money out of the window)... that $500m investment will likely pay off big time.

      That's how many billionaires (many of them tech) doubled or quadrupled their net worth in the last few years (even with most of their VC projects going under).

    8. Re:Risky? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      You have 100 units to spend gambling. You can spend 100 units at the casino, and will eventually end up with nothing, or extremely lucky. OR you can spend 10 units on 10 different startups, and if only ONE is successful (likely), you'll get your 100 units back and own a large % of a successful company. If you're better than that, you'll get your 100 and then some back.

      10% success rate looks terrible, but in High Risk, there is High Reward for success.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:Risky? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      does investing in a startup seem more like gambling?

      Yes. Investing in a single startup, *is* gambling. The VCs know this.

      This applies to both investing in a startup, and working for a startup.

      Chances of YOUR company going belly up is perhaps 9 out of 10 (or worse). This is irrelevant of how loyal your CEO tells the employees to be---put in their hearts into the venture, etc. If you join a startup as an employee, you're literally gambling with your future. Sure they may make it big, but VC math says they probably won't.

      That's why VCs invest in dozens of such ventures... *they* have no loyalty nor any particular attachment to any one firm. So for VCs, it really is all about investment, not gambling.

    10. Re: Risky? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Money is points in a game. When you win at a casino, you get respect just for the chips, not for what you buy with the chips. The chips are the points, the goal. Warren Buffett doesn't buy rich guy toys with his money, but he still gets respect for winning at the game in which money is points. Since there is no limit on points, the quantity theory of money is wrong. QED.

    11. Re:Risky? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really true because both players and house can use IOUs which later bounce. But the IOU counts as money during the game itself.

    12. Re:Risky? by number6x · · Score: 1

      Only you need 1,000,000 units to invest in any one of those 10 different start ups. 10,000,000 to invest in all 10 of them.

      The casino will let you lose your money in pieces as small as 1/20 of a unit at a time.

    13. Re:Risky? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You borrow 100 units to spend gambling. You perfectly hedge a portfolio, using linear algebra optimization to solve Ax=b where A is a matrix of today's prices together with all possible future prices, b is your desired profit, and x is a trading strategy to get you to your desired profit. Your borrowed $100 is safe no matter what. Then you loan out parts of your portfolio overnight, doing repo trades, and the like, making enough in interest to cover your funding costs, plus more if you have the right connections who want to use you for overnight trades. You make another $100 from your perfectly hedged portfolio, and throw that at a startup just for the heck of it ...

    14. Re:Risky? by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      10% success rate looks terrible, but in High Risk, there is High Reward for success.

      I'm not sure 10% is really called "high risk" for investing in start-up. You forgot that you also have a risk of picking wrong investments (often times due to bias) that will turn your investment into 0% return (and 100% loss)...

    15. Re:Risky? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? With stock, what goes up, comes back down. It too, is a zero sum game. We have just had a very long "meta-bubble" since the 1930s, propped up by governments and WWII.

    16. Re:Risky? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      All analogies break down at some point. The casino one fails here because that could never happen in real life. The wider repercussions if that went wrong mean that no sane government would even consider thinking about allowing it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    17. Re: Risky? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're ignoring dividends, liquidation events, and the value of the actual products produced, you nihilistic ninny.

    18. Re:Risky? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Depends. Is it some guy you were at college with & a former work colleague, plus some other people they know well and you've at least met, based in a garage in Akron ? Or some random norkwads who met on Fuckbase with a plan for a dog walking service (but with an app!!!!) that runs out of a penthouse overlooking the golden gate bridge?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    19. Re: Risky? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're completely wrong about equity market being a zero sum game. But the only person you're hurting by being wrong is yourself, by choosing not to save and invest in it.

      So I'm torn. On one hand, I feel sort of a duty to help stamp out ignorance like yours. But on the other hand, there's some schadenfreude appeal in letting cynics like you just hurt yourselves. Then again, if I say nothing, some innocent person might read your post, think it's correct, and be harmed by the misinformation.

    20. Re:Risky? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure what "that can never happen in real life" refers to. If you mean IOUs wouldn't be accepted at a casino, the players have credit cards and the casino issues a check. If you put the check in the same bank as the casino's, the credit doesn't get drawn on until you withdraw as cash. If you paid a merchant who had your bank too, the casino's credit is circulating as money. The money supply has increased by expansion of credit, with nothing needed to be paid back until someone withdraws the credit as cash or pays someone who has another bank. Then the casino's bank can borrow short-term to cover it if they don't have the reserves (or even if they do but have good borrowing terms to its cheaper to borrow than spend their own reserves). The short-term borrowing in the private money markets, or in a pinch from the Fed, can be rolled as long as the bank likes. Thus the amount of capital at the casino is not really set, because credit circulates as money there ...

    21. Re: Risky? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      The stock market is just a casino for the rich.

      Ridiculous. The stock market is the greatest wealth creation device, for ANYONE.

      Invest money in an S&P500 tracking fund with the lowest fees, for the long long term, and you'll likely beat the return on other investments.

      As for the original topic of this item, at least the summary doesn't describe how much VC money USUALLY disappears in a year. This is more well known (to tech people) companies than usual, I guess. However, VCs do live in a different world than you & I. They invest in many companies, EXPECTING that most of them lose money, and make money on the very low percentage that do well, or very very well.

    22. Re: Risky? by darthsilun · · Score: 1

      VC and startups aren't the stock market. The stock market comes later, usually after the company is making a profit, or at least has sales; by which time it isn't a startup any more.

      Investing in a startup is a gamble. Don't gamble with money you can't afford to lose. If you want to know the odds before you place your bet, go to Vegas.

      This is Econ 101 or Finance 101 stuff. Risk/Reward ratio. High risk = High return (i.e. interest rate). A low risk investment like a CD or a Money Market mutual fund returns 1 or 2%. A home mortgage or a car loan can be 4% or 5%, or more. Credit cards charge 12%, 16%, 24%, etc. If a bank were to loan money to a startup, the interest rate might be 1000% or more, but banks don't/won't lend to a startup.

      So who lends to startups? People who can afford to lose millions. But when they win, they expect to be paid commensurately with the risk they incurred.

    23. Re: Risky? by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Depends on your definition of "wealth creation" I guess. Sure you can get 8-10% on some relatively safe tracking funds, but that's not exactly going to bring you into the realm of the elite if you weren't already there.

      You used to be able to get filthy rich by playing the market to be sure.. but that's not really plausible anymore. I mean it was always difficult since you were essentially betting against people who traded stocks for a living.. but with some dedication and some luck you could do so. The whole day trading industry was grew up around this when suddenly everybody could potentially run their own stocks rather than having to call their broker and wait for him to get around to making the trade (by which point the price may have shifted unfavorably.)

      But you don't hear about day traders too much anymore.. and there's a reason for that. High frequency trading (HFT.) These systems have essentially destroyed the stock market as a method to make big money. Because if there's big money to be made, they've already made it within microseconds or even nanoseconds and you're stuck behind your slow human thought processes (not to mention your internet connection.)

      Basically its the same issue as calling your broker, but instead of the market shifting unfavorably.. its potentially completely different by the time you've spent a few minutes considering your data.

      Now you could (and people have) written essentially their own HFT software.. but without the direct fiber to the market computers that the "real" HFT companies have, you're stuck in the realm of milliseconds while they're operating in microseconds or less. Certainly you can do a lot better than if you were trying to trade manually but its still a significant disadvantage. And that's if your software is good -- the HFT companies of course have a large investment in development and tweaking of their systems to ensure optimal trading patterns. And even if you're a really good programmer, you still aren't a dozen or more really good programmers with dedicated analysts backing them up.

      So yes, if you play it safe the market can still create wealth for you. But calling it the "greatest" at this point is probably a bit more questionable than it would have been even 20 years ago. Its just not possible to win against those HFTs short of an absurd stroke of luck (like say deciding to buy Apple stock just by pure coincidence right before the iPhone was announced.)

    24. Re: Risky? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you hedge startups perfectly using linear algebra; A is VC capital plus all future states in a matrix; b is your desired state; and x are the trades you make on A to get b. Ax = b. Solve that equation and you are guaranteed to make your desired profit. So it's always worth it for them if they know how to hedge using math.

    25. Re: Risky? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can rest assured he won't listen to you, so do it for the ones who will.

    26. Re:Risky? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure what "that can never happen in real life" refers to.

      Don't worry, everybody else does.

    27. Re: Risky? by rhyous · · Score: 1

      Depends on your definition of "wealth creation" I guess. Sure you can get 8-10% on some relatively safe tracking funds, but that's not exactly going to bring you into the realm of the elite

      If you are calling Bill Gates elite, than no, you won't get there. But if you are calling a millionaire elite, then yes, it will.

      Yes, it will, if you continue to invest. It compounds. 8% of 100 leaves you with 108%, right? Yes. But that isn't the only factor. Set $100 to go into the account per paycheck, (two paychecks per month) and don't live outside your means, and you will have $2400 you put in in a given year. The first 100 of that will get you $8. The second $100 gets you 23/24ths of $8 by the end of the year and so on.

      Don't tell me most people can't afford $100 a paycheck because I see them paying more than that on unnecessary items (Cable TV, new Cell-Phones with costly plans, eating out, etc.). Most people are stupid. Instead of building their nest egg they are spending it on frivolous things.

      The next year, you get a 3% raise. You increase your 100 a paycheck to $103. The following year you increase by another 3% and so on.

      From age 18 to 65. That is 47 years. Do the math, compound the interest and you will see how much you have by saving and investing when you turn 65.
      http://www.thecalculatorsite.c...

      You will have $1,824,827.31. But it should be noted that if you don't touch the base and only use your interest, you can retire on making $150K a year. Sure, in 65 years, that will be like $30K a year now.

      If you make an additional contribution each year, say $1000, from a bonus or a tax return, you will have even more, 2.7 million or so and living on 220K a year. So when they die, they still have 2.7 million. Plus a paid off house which with inflation is probably worth 30 years * 220k, or 6.6 million.

      Now imagine a family with three kids. They split the 2.7 million (2 million after taxes) and the house (another 4 million after taxes) and on death each kid gets $2 million when their parents die. Of course those kids are almost 65 now and have their own nest eggs themselves, and they get to add 2 million to that.

      Yes, this is really happening today.

  5. That's not a lot of money by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1.5 billion is a drop in the bucket in America's economy much less the global one. This is /., I'd like to think we understand numbers well enough to know that.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:That's not a lot of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      America is broke! We can't afford this anymore!

    2. Re: That's not a lot of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They're taking our jobs! We have to build a wall!

      Quick! Swing by home depot, pick up some illegals, and put them to work!

    3. Re:That's not a lot of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but how has the number varied compared to other years? It might really sound like a drop in the bucket if a typical year was say 10 billion, or might sound like a lot more if a typical year was only a million. A lot more context is needed...

    4. Re:That's not a lot of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      World capital is probably around $1 quadrillion. See Bain & Company, A World Awash in Money, and the BIS statistics on derivatives for evidence.

    5. Re:That's not a lot of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really not about the money, it's a statement on venture capitalism in general. I'm seriously hoping I'm not making this apparent to you but given how lunkheaded your average slashtard seems to be about business and economics? Well, I'm just saying.

      BTW: If you don't know what statement this makes about the current state of VC then, yes, you're the average slashtard lunkhead.

    6. Re:That's not a lot of money by pmotuja · · Score: 1

      1.5 billion is a drop in the bucket in America's economy much less the global one. This is /., I'd like to think we understand numbers well enough to know that.

      If you spent 1.5 billions dollars on some kind of think tank that would just focus on asking the right freakin' questions about where humans are going....the result might be more than that drop of water vapor.

    7. Re:That's not a lot of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1.5 billion is a drop in the bucket

      While I agree with you, did you see what those companies were offering? It seems to me we're just in the middle of yet another bubble and as long as you call your company a startup, there's some sucker out there willing to put tens of millions into it. A food delivery company has no business (pun intended) being in a startup list...

    8. Re:That's not a lot of money by mjwx · · Score: 1

      1.5 billion is a drop in the bucket in America's economy much less the global one. This is /., I'd like to think we understand numbers well enough to know that.

      And we're still waiting for the big ones to go bust.

      Uber alone is likely to double that figure in loses this year.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  6. For each one that flops by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    For each one that flops there's a million Facebooks. Or is it the other way round?

    But hey, what do I know, I'm just playing with pother people's money.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:For each one that flops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your a doosh

    2. Re:For each one that flops by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      There is a wide gulf between successful and facebook.

      If an investor puts say 500,000 into a startup, lets assume for simplicity its just an idea and there is no current capitalization and the company grows to having a market cap of 10 million or so, said investor has done pretty well.

      That is the sort of thing that happens probably fairly often but you don't hear about it, because 10M cap companies rarely get a lot of press. Yet almost any one would be pretty happy to sell 10M worth of shares in something they only paid 500,000 for.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    3. Re:For each one that flops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *you're

  7. The Basic Test by AlanObject · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In order to have a business which ONE item of the following do you need?

    • a: A business plan
    • b: Innovative new technology or service
    • c: Capital
    • d: Customer
    • e: Market Presence

    I learned the correct answer over 30 years ago and to this day I see endless startups and investors still get it wrong. People who should know better. So it doesn't surprise me much that $1.5B goes up in smoke.

    1. Re:The Basic Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you weren't kind enough to tell us your answer (as it could easily be A and C except for your proscription on multiple answers), we'll assume you meant A. Of course, if you want to have a business after 6 months you'd better have found C as well.

    2. Re:The Basic Test by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      d: Customer. It isn't sufficient by itself, but you _need_ a customer. The others you can 'find another way', but someone _has_ to pay you. With only a customer, plan on rough seas. You want a plan, but you can find that on the way.

      If they're not paying, they aren't the customer...see Google.

      A shit business plan is worse than useless.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:The Basic Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The answer should be D - customer. Without a customer you don't actually have a business yet.

    4. Re:The Basic Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bzzzzt! Congratulations, you too can get some answer C venture capital, execute your A business plan, and end up with nothing at all. Meanwhile, I'll start with D a customer or two, hopefully grow my customer list, and be profitable.

    5. Re:The Basic Test by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Everyone in Silicon Valley knows the real answer:

      f) Someone stupid enough to believe your bullshit and lucky enough to have money.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    6. Re:The Basic Test by epine · · Score: 2

      After you fold a business which ONE item of the following do you have left?

              a: Smoke

              b: Established business relationships

              c: Acquired market expertise

              d: Developed technology

              e: Amazingly comfortable office chairs

      There's a reason why the VC community is build to lather, rinse, repeat. What motivates you to get one of these right, but not the other?

      Some startup ventures pretty much leave behind a smoking crater, but that certainly isn't the only story here.

    7. Re:The Basic Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      it's d dumbass

    8. Re:The Basic Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The correct answer is D. Without customers willing to pay enough money to keep the lights on, you can have whatever business plan, technology, service, capital, or market presence you want, and you'll still fail. You need customers to stay afloat as a business, period.

      The customer always comes first, not necessarily because they're right, or they'll always get what they want, but keeping them spending money ALWAYS comes first.

    9. Re:The Basic Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fail. The answer is D. The customer is the "demand" in supply and demand.

    10. Re:The Basic Test by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      You could have all of those things and still fail.

      Google and Microsoft both came from behind and buried numerous competitors in their primary markets. These companies all had tech, customers, and mindshare.

      Sometimes it takes a long time to go from a proof of concept to an actual, deliverable product. This is where most VCs come in---they provide the money to build the consumer-ready product. This is the scenario we're looking at.

      In that case, you don't even really have the technology yet, and you could stumble in developing or deploying it. And obviously, no product means no customers.

      A business plan tells the investors how you plan to handle the other things on that list. So, yes, they care deeply about that business plan and the other things. That's because they generally expect that you have few, if any, customers to begin with.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    11. Re:The Basic Test by istartedi · · Score: 2

      I like that you didn't tell us the answer, and to me it's obviously D. Customer.

      Here's my logic. Let's say you have a business plan. Great. You've got a plan to sell sand to Bedouin. It's not going anywhere.

      Now let's say all you've got is B, an innovative new product or service. This one is tempting. You'd think the world would beat a path to your door... except when it doesn't. This happens more than some of us would like to admit.

      OK, C. Capital. Surely that makes a business, right? Wrong. Any number of wealthy heirs are flush with capital, but not only do they not have a business, they don't even have sensible investments and they piss it away. Sometimes they piss it away on people who have a plan to sell sand to Bedouin using an innovative new service.

      OK, E. Market presence. That implies a business, right? OK... once again, tempting; but you could have a fantastic presense, and a Superbowl ad, and just be pissing money away because you don't have enough....

      C. Customers. They ultimately pay the bills. You can have none of that other junk, but if you have one fat customer (like a house you're trying to flip) or a bunch of customers, as in any retail business, then the rest follows.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    12. Re:The Basic Test by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      Venture Capital should be offering more than just money, and often doesn't offer anything. I prefer capital that has a concern in the business beyond money/interest. Sometimes, it helps to have someone who knows where to go when you need something, and can open doors otherwise closed.

      To be successful requires more than a customer (you need that too). If your customers are draining resources, your D is going to be your death. You have to have a profit, or at least a path to profitability.

      My answer would be F) All of the Above, in one way or another. Customers without a plan is a recipe for disaster. Like most things in life, it takes a balance.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    13. Re:The Basic Test by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      F) all of the above. Getting lucky on Customers is nice, but long term sucks as a plan.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    14. Re:The Basic Test by slinches · · Score: 1

      The correct answer is that it's a trick question. You need A, C & D at least.

      Although, if I had to pick only one, it's C. With enough capital, you can afford to buy the rest.

      --
      Knowledge Brings Fear
    15. Re:The Basic Test by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It's a trick question. No single one is sufficient. But customer is the only one that's absolutely required.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    16. Re:The Basic Test by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      In many of these cases, the customer is the VC and the business is selling something to them. Repeat business is hard to generate though, and it's a pretty crowded marketplace.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    17. Re:The Basic Test by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      The correct answer is that it's a trick question. You need A, C & D at least.

      Although, if I had to pick only one, it's C. With enough capital, you can afford to buy the rest.

      Hell, with enough capital you can prop the thing up long enough to take it public, then dump it on the market and walk away with millions.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    18. Re:The Basic Test by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I have worked at a number of SMBs some of doing well today some are gone. You a dead right about the customer thing. You have to have customers. To some extent you have to let those one or two fact customers tell you who you are.

      This is a dangerous game however you need the revenue but you can't let them turn you into something that isn't appealing to the broader market or you will only ever have them as a customer, until you don't and than you are doomed. The game must be played and the tight rope must be walked. This is true for basically any SMB that isn't about selling cupcakes to passers by on the street.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    19. Re:The Basic Test by slew · · Score: 1

      The correct answer is that it's a trick question. You need A, C & D at least.

      Although, if I had to pick only one, it's C. With enough capital, you can afford to buy the rest.

      Hell, with enough capital you can prop the thing up long enough to take it public, then dump it on the market and walk away with millions.

      That's what most startup companies do when they realize they don't have customers. The startups that actually have customers are too busy trying to mortgage their future to keep their customers and they get way less capital than they generally need.

      When you want something, getting it is easy. When you need something you'll pay through the nose to get it.

    20. Re:The Basic Test by AlanObject · · Score: 1

      In many of these cases, the customer is the VC and the business is selling something to them. Repeat business is hard to generate though, and it's a pretty crowded marketplace.

      This is a very good observation and if I could vote in this thread I would vote Insightful+. Thinking back to the text so long ago that I read that posed this question that might not have been considered a valid point. Since then, however, it has been a practice of quite a few start ups to specifically generate enough hype of a "business-like" entity" such that that their stock can be obtained by the first VC to sell to the bigger fool a short time later. In that sense the product being sold is hype-able stock and the nominal customers of the company, if any, can be viewed as the commodity to be sold.

      Certainly a lot of money has been made that way but often the companies either fail or are absorbed by a larger company to live or die on the merits there

    21. Re:The Basic Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a lot of truth to this. We're a startup that has customers and in general, it seems to be actually harder to get investment when you have concrete sales vs a blue sky pitch.

    22. Re:The Basic Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the frustrating thing. I went for VC for an idea, with an actual profit/revenue model and what not. I was told "I love your idea, but I don't think it's sexy enough for us." Jesus fucking christ, you can fund my company for basically the salary of 3 or 4 people and server costs, with a built-in revenue model, and that's not sexy enough?

      Goddammit, let me write a fucking Who Farted? App and get millions.

    23. Re:The Basic Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think there's been lots and lots of this kind of thing this time around. Lots of startup "companies" as nothing more than financial instruments where the goal is to pump them up, find the greater fool and get a payout.

    24. Re:The Basic Test by byteherder · · Score: 1

      This is a trick question...NONE OF THE ABOVE.

      A business needs PROFITS. With profits a business insures it will be in business tomorrow.

      How many of those companies that failed were profitable?

    25. Re:The Basic Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet electricity is negative in price. We overproduce electricity and reject at least half of it. Electricity should be free, or we should be paid to take it off the overburdened grid. Only neoliberal profit-motivated companies create an illusion of scarcity where there is in fact oversupply, in order to profit at they are required to do because neoclassical economic theory.

    26. Re:The Basic Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if you increase the supply, the demand will follow!

    27. Re:The Basic Test by martinX · · Score: 2

      Do you want to look as happy as AlanObject? Do you want the answer to the question? Send one dollar to Happy Dude, 742 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield.

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    28. Re:The Basic Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      e: Amazingly comfortable office chairs

      I *still* regret not picking up an Aeron chair when the bubble popped.

    29. Re:The Basic Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have worked at a number of SMBs some of doing well today some are gone. You a dead right about the customer thing. You have to have customers. To some extent you have to let those one or two fact customers tell you who you are.

      This is a dangerous game however you need the revenue but you can't let them turn you into something that isn't appealing to the broader market or you will only ever have them as a customer, until you don't and than you are doomed. The game must be played and the tight rope must be walked. This is true for basically any SMB that isn't about selling cupcakes to passers by on the street.

      Yep, I watched that happen at the first SMB I worked for, by the time I had left they still only had one real customer and went under a year later.

    30. Re:The Basic Test by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Actually you don't need profits. A business can operate for years or decades on zero profits (and we have an entire class of business -- non-profits -- which intentionally do exactly that.)

      You just can't have negative profits (ie: losing money.) Breaking even is fine.

    31. Re:The Basic Test by madsenj37 · · Score: 1

      "A shit business plan is worse than useless." Actually, implementation is the key to a business plan. Many great business plans are implemented terribly. Execution is everything.

      --
      Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
    32. Re:The Basic Test by bazorg · · Score: 1

      I'd agree that they are all important. However, the importance of the customer may be smaller than in traditional businesses, if we consider "startups" to be an investment vehicle rather than a normal phase of business development.
      There's probably more than one reason why there's so much talk about startups as something separate from normal companies or businesses. In my view, for many startups, the idea is to build something that gets the attention of some big spender willing to acquire the whole company. In these weird circumstances, even having customers and a sustainable sales operation is low priority.

    33. Re:The Basic Test by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      It's d: customer(s).

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    34. Re:The Basic Test by AlanObject · · Score: 1

      The correct answer is D: customer.

      It is possible to work around each other answer. For example a sex worker, lawyer, or mega-church do not need capital or a business plan to go into business. Nor do they need a product as such. Even if you manufacture something if you have a customer that is willing to pre-pay an order you don't need capital or a business plan. The job of Marketing is to generate customers and if it does not then it gets de-funded.

      At the end of the day to have a business you need a customer who is willing to pay for whatever you are selling, regardless of what it is you are selling if anything. (Mega-churches are a business model that produce nothing tangible but boy do they make money.)

      Management teams that do not understand this can still succeed in spite of themselves, but if things start going south it is because they have not internalized this basic lesson.

      I do not generally write replies to my own posts but this exception is to say thanks to everyone who responded to my OP.

    35. Re:The Basic Test by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      If you're selling a pile of bullshit to a VC. The bullshit is the product and the VC is the customer. Your _exorbitant_ salary is the payout. Everybody knows the VC won't let anybody cash out stock before them, that's just how they roll.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    36. Re:The Basic Test by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      'Perfect execution' of a 'shit business plan' is still shit.

      Execution is everything. But you have to 'execute the planning' before you can 'execute the plan', even if that means stopping 'the plan' when you realize the problem(s).

      When you're in charge of executing a broken plan and their is nothing you can do about it, it's time to move on, ASAP. Execute the job hunt.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    37. Re:The Basic Test by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      If fraud is a business, a whole bunch of con artists will show you that capital alone suffices.

      If, on the other hand, fraud isn't a business, the stock markets are funding an awful lot of amateurs.

    38. Re:The Basic Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope.

      All you need is Capital.

      Have enough Capital and you can stay in "business" for years, even if you never get around to any of the other stuff.

  8. Headline: A majority of busniess fail! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    More at 11 PM.

    1. Re:Headline: A majority of busniess fail! by tsqr · · Score: 1

      While it's true that given enough time all businesses fail, we're talking about startups here, not speculating about the heat death of the universe.

      Actually, about 80% of new businesses survive their first year; 69%, their second year; 61%, their third year. After 5 years it's down to just under 50%, and after 20 years it's around 20%. Of course, that's ALL new businesses, not just the Silicon Valley unicorn-hunter variety. More info here.

  9. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Silicon Valley is way overdue for a nice hard crash and I'm sick of hearing about all the people throwing away money there while those of us in the rest of the country can't even find decent work with actual non-bullshitter qualifications.

    1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The video game industry needs another 1983 to say the least, if not the entire tech sector.

    2. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you considered putting on some shoes and walking to a bus station? If you don't, you've chosen your situation and need to stop complaining.

  10. 1.48 billion is chicken feed by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    It looks big to you and me. But US GDP is near 18 Trillion dollars and the net assets of USA is around 90 trillion dollars.

    It is like a 9$ an hour worker spending 1.5$ on a lottery ticket. Or a poor household with just 90K in net assets spending 1.5 $ on a bottle of shampoo.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:1.48 billion is chicken feed by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      There's a recession on the horizon and the whisperings of whatever bubble is popping are coming out. The narrative recently has been a start-up bubble; I haven't quantified it. All I know is we're consistently entering recession, at peak recession, or recovering from recession for years and years; and then we settle, coast for two years, and enter a new recession. It's about time for the next one, so I guess I'm not the only one who noticed; folks want to be able to tell you they saw it coming.

    2. Re:1.48 billion is chicken feed by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      And people have been predicting the next recession since 2009. Eventually they will be right, but that doesn't mean they can predict the future. The people who listened to them and sold their stocks or stayed out of the market missed all the gains that have happened since then. There are ALWAYS people predicting doom in the markets and most of the time they are wrong. Timing the market is a sucker's game, the best policy is to be widely diversified and stay the course (and buy stocks at a lower price) when a recession does come.

      --

      Enigma

    3. Re:1.48 billion is chicken feed by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I haven't been predicting the next recession on the horizon since 2009; the Zero Hedge guy is a raving lunatic.

      Take a look at month-to-month unemployment, go back a while, like 1970.

      There are a few wars in there, so this gets messy. In general, if you take a look at the non-reentrant spikes in unemployment, you'll see the outline of recessions. (They're all recessions, but not useful for pattern-matching.) That's great and all, but we need to identify a few things, like when is a new recession coming?

      You'll notice that the less-chaotic of these (the ones that didn't have crashes or wars in the middle) spike up after what looks like a level trough (horizontal movement). It looks like something you might want to call "flat" there even though it's curved because there's an inflection point: the slope changes.

      Get a straight edge.

      On the downslope of, say, the dot-com bust, follow its regression. You'll see a point where it stops following your straight-edge, veering off to the right. Two years after that, the housing market shit itself, and the 2008 recession started.

      You can see that in the mid-90s, and the mid-80s, and 1978. You can see the abortion around 1995, where something strange happened as a new recession looked like it might shoot out of nowhere, and then didn't.

      So here's the trick: generally, you bottom out on unemployment when a recession ends. You have a recovery period where unemployment steadily goes away, and then it stops going away as fast (inflection point). Two years later, unemployment starts creeping back up. You need to identify the inflection point coming out of a recession, then identify the inflection point entering a new one.

      Unemployment isn't a straight line. It'll wobble a bit. It may take 3-4 months to see if you inflected. So you can go up .1%, then continue on your way down, carrying the same general regression trend. If 3 months later you're going sideways or, worse, starting to climb slowly, that's the next recession. It's starting and, if something doesn't change, it's going to come full-swing.

      We're coming up on about the right time. Unemployment just ticked up--that might be the flag, but I need to see if it goes back down 0.1%, then comes back up 0.1%, or if it otherwise shows that it's done falling and is ready to start climbing again. I had predicted September to be about the right time, and figured on a recession kicking in between September 2017 and April 2018. Note that you can't make this prediction until a few months after April 2015; and even then it's a shot in the dark. The marker should be just about here, and the recession itself should be 6-12 months further out.

      Some people are actually pretty good at this shit. They're mostly using stock market reads and economic factors like GDP from various sectors. I'm using blunt tools. To the uninitiated, it all looks like voodoo, because there's always a lot of people screaming that the sky is about to fall in just a few more days and we all need to take cover; somehow the weatherman actually knows when a storm is coming, or at least he knows one's actually out there headed this way right now, even if he can't say precisely what time it's gonna get here. Yes, there's always a storm in the future; there isn't always a storm physically formed right over there, making its way over here, to arrive some time depending on how fast the wind blows.

  11. Regulations by fluffernutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Obviously they didn't provide enough ways to ignore preexisting laws and regulations as required by a startup to be successful these days. It's the economy of cost savings through flouting the rules.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  12. No more gadgets. No more apps. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad to see this ship sinking. We have enough poorly executed, second rate, ill thought-out junk cluttering up our lives. Some wannabe greedy banksters-to-be trying to hustle us with their trinkets and bullshit. Sorry Charlie-boy, no sale. No sale.

  13. Who would have thought!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who would have thunk'd that finding the rarest unicorn possible could be so hard??

  14. Useless Ideas and Nonexistent Innovations by DatbeDank · · Score: 1

    A lot of start ups try to repackage something mundane into something sexy (ex Juiceroo). It doesn't work. It's hard, but when I find a startup with some patents, I take notice.

    Actual innovation is hard which is why there's so much BS out there.

  15. legalized gambling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hypocrites.

  16. And? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    Most people know that most businesses fail. There are numerous reasons why this can happen but that's not being discussed, what is being discussed is that "shit doesn't work out for everyone" which is kind of a "well duh" type statement.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  17. No it hasn't by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Money is like energy. Unless there is some huge devaluation event or you actually burn physical notes this money has not gone up in smoke.

    What has really happened is that this $1.48 billion has instead ended up in the hands of people other than the VCs or the companies they were funding.

    In the words some other group of people is now collectively $1.48 billion richer.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:No it hasn't by nickersonm · · Score: 1

      Money is like energy. Unless there is some huge devaluation event or you actually burn physical notes this money has not gone up in smoke.

      Arguably burning physical notes evenly distributes the value to all other holders of the same currency, even. Further strengthening your point: it's very hard to destroy money.

    2. Re:No it hasn't by raftpeople · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In other words, the title should be "$1.48 Billion has been transferred to smarter people."

    3. Re:No it hasn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the money sure is 'unavailable' to previously interested parties, how about that?
      So yeah- it's gone up in smoke... unless you are a banker moving it in an interest bearing account.

    4. Re:No it hasn't by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      No no no no no. The world has become collectively $1.48 billion poorer by allocating those resources poorly. Sure, those $1.48B did actually go to leasing offices and buying ping pong tables or whatever, and that money went to perfectly good businesses supplying those things, but on a larger scale it was not spent in the best possible way.

      Anyway, that's always the nature of progress -- humanity tries things, some succeed, many fail. Iridium spent billions on a satellite network that no one wanted, those billions were wasted because they could have been spent on something that people actually did. Many shops open, only some of them stay open. Many people put oil to canvas or ink to paper, only a few become successful artists and authors.

      This is good news. Any system that doesn't produce some faction of failure is almost certainly playing it way too safe and not taking the kind of risks that, overall, increase the average return even if they increase the variance of return.

      Could we do a better job not funding idiotic startups? Probably.
      Should we? Maybe not, if it means losing out on the next Intel or Google.

    5. Re:No it hasn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Money is like energy, and is thus expanding constantly as dark energy pours in.

    6. Re:No it hasn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I always translate fraud and failure to "smarter".

      Has a nicer ring to it.

    7. Re:No it hasn't by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

      The economy is a competition for resources. I put my widgets up for sale, hoping to entice people to give me resources in the form of money, for them; a panhandler hopes to accrue resources by playing on my empathy, and induce me to give him some money; stockbrokers attempt to sell dreams of riches to stock buyers; startups attempt to sell dreams of riches to investors.

      Whoever "wins" the most resources is not necessarily smarter, but a) a better economic competitor and b) perhaps a bit luckier.

      Being a better competitor can certainly mean more ruthless and devious as well, though it doesn't have to.

  18. Beepi, Quixey, Yik Yak, Maple, Sprig... by Nutria · · Score: 2

    People are too embarrassed to buy from companies with names like that.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:Beepi, Quixey, Yik Yak, Maple, Sprig... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smart. Not embarrassed, smart.

    2. Re:Beepi, Quixey, Yik Yak, Maple, Sprig... by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      People are too embarrassed to buy from companies with names like that.

      I wasn't sure about that so I had to google it.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    3. Re:Beepi, Quixey, Yik Yak, Maple, Sprig... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:Beepi, Quixey, Yik Yak, Maple, Sprig... by houghi · · Score: 1

      Google, Apple; Alibaba, Sinopec, Axa, ....
      Just because they are famous and big now does not mean their name are any better.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    5. Re:Beepi, Quixey, Yik Yak, Maple, Sprig... by Nutria · · Score: 1

      The word "maple" has to be paired with another word to sound right.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    6. Re:Beepi, Quixey, Yik Yak, Maple, Sprig... by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Google and Axa are on the edge of stupidity. The other three are ok.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  19. Definition of 'startup' by nickersonm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't know how they define a startup, but it's apparently very broadly interpreted if the 20 year old Jawbone is included.

  20. FuckedCompany 2.0 by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

    Someone needs to resurrect Fucked Company. We're missing a prime opportunity for comedy.

    1. Re:FuckedCompany 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.thelayoff.com/

    2. Re:FuckedCompany 2.0 by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Didn't that company merged with Up Duck?

    3. Re:FuckedCompany 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am really surprised no one has. That site was very entertaining to read, especially in the last few months of the Dotcom Bubble when things were absolutely insane.

      I don't know when it will happen, but it will. There are just too many dumb ideas getting funded for it not to.

    4. Re:FuckedCompany 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come back Pud!

      I still have my FC T-Shirt :-)

  21. The Basic Plan by raftpeople · · Score: 4, Funny

    If I remember right, these are the key steps:
    1. Start Up
    2. Cash In
    3. Sell Out
    4. Bro Down

  22. Particularly Risky by Excelcia · · Score: 1

    Is it just me, or is investing in a new used anything sale site, social media app, or anything tracker particularly risky? Seriously, anyone who hands over money to someone who says "I've got this great idea for a web site that'll kill Facebook", or (in this day and age) says "people are going to pay me money to put a device in their room that watches them sleep" deserves to flush that money down the toilet.

    The genius of the startups certainly isn't in their ideas. Its in finding VC funders who have that much money and that little sense. That has to be a damn small window.

  23. Twitter smoke... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Read "Hatching Twitter: A True Story of Money, Power, Friendship, and Betrayal" by Nick Bilton, which can be summed up in a Mark Zuckerburg quote: "[the four founders] drove a clown car into a gold mine and fell in." Twitter as a technology company was an afterthought as the founders squabble over who would be CEO, spent investors' money out the wazoo and didn't bother finding a way to make money.

    1. Re:Twitter smoke... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Twitter as a technology company was an afterthought as the founders squabble over who would be CEO, spent investors' money out the wazoo and didn't bother finding a way to make money.

      And let me guess: They're all billionaires anyway.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    2. Re:Twitter smoke... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      And let me guess: They're all billionaires anyway.

      Noah Glass got pushed out early even though Twitter was his idea. Biz Stone who was in the right place at the right time is a multimillionaire. Jack Dorsey (first and current CEO) and Evan Williams (second CEO) are billionaires.

    3. Re:Twitter smoke... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      And let me guess: They're all billionaires anyway.

      Noah Glass got pushed out early even though Twitter was his idea. Biz Stone who was in the right place at the right time is a multimillionaire. Jack Dorsey (first and current CEO) and Evan Williams (second CEO) are billionaires.

      Is that what happens when you take a company that makes no money and dump it on the stock market?

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    4. Re:Twitter smoke... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have been working on such scheme since the great depression I was unemployed coming soon on my site a manual and guide on how to get rich with amazon affiliate program with proper exposure on sites such as slashdot I hope you will support me and buy my manual or at least click on some adsense ads on my site. Thanks!
      -cremier
      --
      Buy amazon book from my site! There are 10 kinds of people on Slashdot. Which kind are you? https://www.cdreimer.com/slash...

    5. Re:Twitter smoke... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got Amazon Dot. Where are my cock eggs?

  24. why did these well-known startups fail? by lkcl · · Score: 1

    beepi: never heard of it
    quixey: never heard of it
    yik yak: never heard of it ... ... ...

  25. Money that didn't exist in the first place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is a human invention, measuring human things. That's all. We build our lives around a fiction.

    Congratulations, human race! You're a bunch of fools!

    1. Re:Money that didn't exist in the first place by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

      Not a fiction but an extremely durable logical construct. As long as any individual can only see their sliver of the economy, and everyone else values the money as they value it, and it's able to provide the holder with the necessities he requires, the construct continues.

  26. 1.48 Billion by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    At Least $1.48 Billion in VC Funding Has Gone Up in Smoke This Year...

    And that's just Uber! ;-)

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  27. Not if, but when... by ErichTheRed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Having lived through the last Dotcom Bubble, I'm very surprised it's taking this long for the current one to pop. This time, it's mainly situated in Silicon Valley, but last time there was an East Coast bubble outpost in NYC. This was because traditional media publishers and TV networks were desperate to buy into the bubble as well. I saw lots of huge 3-story Times Square billboard ads for companies like Beenz and Webvan as I walked to my "boring, old school" sysadmin job. I always wondered where these companies got their money from...I mean obviously from VCs, but do they just dump $40 million in the company's bank account and say "go buy Nerf toys, Aeron chairs and all the advertising you can book!"?

    I'm sure the pop for this current bubble will be coming pretty soon. There are just too many copycat companies out there trying to squeeze the last few drops of blood out of the bubble. I've seen no fewer than 6 meal kit delivery services (like Blue Apron,) at least 4 clothing delivery subscriptions (like Stitch Fix,) and 10,000,000,000,000 magic DevOps tool vendors. (Guess what line of work I'm in these days...I can't tell you how many 5-person startups have offered to solve 100% of my application problems using their One Cool Trick.)

    A favorite phrase back then was "this time it's different!" Indeed it is -- this time we have The Cloud. A startup doesn't have to spend millions to buy or rent a data center, and they can coast on VC fumes for much longer than Bubble 1.0 startups. They can also advertise on Facebook and Google instead of those Times Square billboards. So I imagine this will continue for a while, but just like the last bubble, this one isn't sustainable either.

    1. Re:Not if, but when... by tekrat · · Score: 2

      As someone who was stuck in the middle of the 'Silicon Alley' Dot-Com bubble in NYC, it certainly did seem like companies would appear overnight, flush with cash for a little while, throw outrageous parties, and then disappear as quickly as they came. And every company had a stupid name like Muffinhead, Razorfish, or Funny Garbage.

      We had a company go out of business owing us $28,000 for work we did for them. The CEO was trying to give me chairs and computers in lieu of payment. Ridiculous.

      --
      If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    2. Re:Not if, but when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Having lived through the last Dotcom Bubble, I'm very surprised it's taking this long for the current one to pop.

      The failure to pop might indicate that we're not actually in a bubble.

      Businesses start and fail (taking their investors' money with them) all the damn time. It's a rare business that succeeds and remains solvent for decades. This is _normal_. It's only when we see this in the tech sector that we get people screaming about bubbles and the imminent collapse of an industry.

      Whatever.

    3. Re:Not if, but when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember Pseudo? Their hallways looked like classroom break at a crowded SUNY campus when I almost interviewed. They had >500 employees and a couple of actual coders. A pal with no experience except bartending was hired at 60k / yr to ... uh ... produce audio programs. They were back behind the bar 18 months later.

    4. Re:Not if, but when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      muffinhead! lololololololol too funny

  28. Seems like we have ... by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

    Too many investment dollars chasing too few good investment opportunities. It's time to shift some capital to wages, increasing aggregate demand. That would result in better returns on existing investments, and give rise to new markets for new investment opportunities.

    1. Re:Seems like we have ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, some startups with great products and ideas have trouble getting funding. Unfortunately, too often it is who you know rather than how good the idea is. VC money chases after known entities. If someone once had a good idea, then every one of their ideas must be gold, right? Instead of judging a startup by its merits, too often they only want to know who is involved.

  29. Given that they'll use these as write offs by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    so that they don't pay taxes on their profitable lines of business, well, you couldn't be more wrong.

    Now, if we stopped letting them write off Business As losses for Business Bs profits...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  30. It's just you by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    if you were a billionaire it wouldn't matter. First, it wouldn't be a big risk to you. Second, you'd use the losses on failed businesses to avoid paying taxes on successful ones effectively shifting the risk to the working class in the form of taxes, third you'd have enough investments that the risk would be minimal and fourth if all else failed you'd be Too Big to Fail and get a government bail out. Again, at taxpayer expense.

    This is why socialists exist. We're realists. We don't honestly believe we're going to ever have an even playfield so let the rich have their cake so long as we get ours. In practice the working class fight among themselves to keep anyone from getting cake and the rich laugh all the way to the bank...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:It's just you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "you'd be Too Big to Fail and get a government bail out. Again, at taxpayer expense."

      The Fed is not taxpayer-funded, and it was the Fed that rescued world markets in 2008 and after by promising unlimited liquidity. TARP was political theater. The Fed created debt-free money to shore up world markets, and no taxpayer dollar was needed.

    2. Re:It's just you by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

      Central banks don't create wealth. They create digital and paper representations of wealth. If I have a village with 10 people and the the money supply is 100 dollars, representing all the goods and services in that village, then I, as king, can appropriate a bit of that wealth by printing up a few extra dollars and either keeping it or giving it to my favored associates.

      The Fed redirected wealth to the sectors and companies it deemed fit, by diluting the pool of money. That's all it can do - redistribute. And they do it subtly.

    3. Re:It's just you by Altrag · · Score: 1

      if all else failed you'd be Too Big to Fail and get a government bail out

      That one's not really true. "Too big to fail" only gets applied when the government suspects that your collapse would have serious and widespread economic impact. A venture capital investment, no matter how big, its pretty unlikely to have that sort of impact and thus wouldn't get covered.

      Car companies keep getting them because, even with all of the bitching about manufacturing being moved to Mexico, they still employ tens of thousands of American workers across the country. If GM shut down that would be an enormous number of people suddenly without work and becoming a strain on society themselves.

      If the banks shut down, suddenly there's massive economic collapse. And with the position of the US in the world stage, its not even limited to that country. There are literally banks (not just in the US) that are big enough that failure could potentially trigger an even greater worldwide depression than the 30s. I mean we already saw some of that in 2008. Without the bailouts it would have continued to get worse instead of being curtailed.

      Now a lot of that is our own damned fault to be sure. We allow the banks to get that big. We allow them to make bogus loans and we allow them to hide the risk of those loans through obscure trading artifacts. But regardless of the reasons, when the bubble finally bursts its generally better for everybody to be subsidizing the rich assholes rather than letting the entire country (or even the world) fall into chaos, no matter how much it stings.

      This is why socialists exist

      No it isn't. It might be why you're a socialist yourself, but the concept of socialism covers far more than simply rich people being rich.

      We're realists

      From what I've seen, most hardcore socialists are just as delusional if not more so than hardcore capitalists. As with most things in life, a balance between the two extremes is generally the optimal solution.

      Rich people can be as rich as they want, but you don't really have to be a hardcore socialist to think that non-rich people should be able to obtain at least the basic essentials -- food, clothing, housing, medical attention. Unfortunately we live in a world mostly run by the rich and the rich are generally heavy on the capitalist side of the coin.. so when they see increasing poverty rates they think "those people should do something!" rather than "we should do something to help those people!", completely ignoring (or even not comprehending) the fact that there is often literally nothing those people can do on their own. Because they've never been in a situation where they didn't have at least one option when things go sour.

    4. Re:It's just you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Toxic assets were "wealth" until labile traders reduced their value to $0, then the Fed stepped in with unlimited liquidity to make a market in them and rescue world finance.

      Your very simplistic model of money was debunked by von Mises (no less) in The Theory of Money and Credit, Part II, Chapter 8, Paragraph 19:

      According to this theory, all the things that are able to satisfy human wants are conventionally equated with all the monetary metal. From this, since what is true of the whole is also true of its parts, the exchange ratios between commodity units and units of money can be deduced. Here we are confronted with a hypothesis that is not in any way supported by facts. To demonstrate its untenability once more would nowadays be a waste of time.

  31. You're wrong by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    not if you're taking companies like Uber. I suppose you do need a) and d). But b) can just be the tech equivalent of lego bricks. As for capital, that's for pleebs. Make it an app and let the users bring the capital and take all the risk. Rely on the bad job market and lax employee protection laws to get away with it.

    It's a whole new world of 'sharing'. And by sharing, I mean you get to share your meager capital resources with the richest people in the world. Oh what a brave new world and what not.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  32. That ain't how it works by Solandri · · Score: 1

    By your reasoning, the trick Enron did (where they repeatedly "sold" an item back and forth between a subsidiary to pad their revenue) was legitimate.

    The important thing isn't the money spent. It's the value obtained from spending that money. I spend $5 on a hammer and use it to fix something that would've cost me $20 if I hired someone, then I gained $20 of productivity for the $5 purchase, for a net gain of $15. My economic productivity increased by $15. It's the productivity increase which is important, which is why the Enron trick doesn't work (no productivity was increased since they were just passing it back and forth).

    In the case of failed businesses, $x was spent but less than $x of productivity was generated. The true loss is the difference between these two, so is less than $x. But it's still a loss.

    Put slightly differently, $1.48 billion is an amount. Economic activity is a rate. Yes that $1.48 billion is still out there in different hands. But the potential for $1.48 billion of economic activity every 6 months from these businesses is now gone. (Not that this should concern anyone. $1.48 billion is less than 0.01% of U.S. GDP. Some losses are necessary when exploring the solution space of viable business activity, and 0.01% is vanishingly tiny. Bad ideas fold. The money gets re-spent on new ideas, most of which hopefully turn out to be good ideas.)

    1. Re:That ain't how it works by Altrag · · Score: 1

      The Enron trick (at least how you've laid it out.. I'm sure it was more complicated in practice) doesn't work because revenues is a useless concept beyond marketing BS. If I tell you I have a billion dollars in revenues you might think that I'm doing great. Until I tell you that I also have 1.2 billion dollars debt. Then I suddenly don't look quite as fantastic.

      That's the problem with the Enron trick.. that false revenue would have had an equal debit on some other ledger (assuming they at least did proper double-entry accounting and didn't fudge the numbers on a basic mathematical level.) So it only looks good if you only look at half the story. Which of course is what they did -- all the real numbers are kept secret and the public only gets to see the ones that look good. Until the shit hits the fan because all of the optimistic press releases in the world don't change the fact that the other half of the story actually exists somewhere, biding its time.

  33. Names. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    Perhaps players in, for example, the automotive sales market were having trouble taking "Beepi" seriousli.

    What IS it with the infantile names? It's a plague. I know, I'll start up AppNameli to help people name their startupslies.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:Names. by freeze128 · · Score: 2

      Startups want a name that they can trademark. All the normally spelled words are already taken or are untrademarkable.

  34. not up in smoke... by tekrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is Trickle Down.
    VC is the ONLY way to get the rich to part with money, by appealing to their greed. Without VC there would be no trickle down at all.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:not up in smoke... by thogard · · Score: 1

      And where do the VC get the money? They get the money from your retirement funds. They do seeding investment and they turn a profit by selling at an IPO. The big buyers at an IPO are retirement funds. The retirement funds have a real problem as some of the tech funds have a billion to invest every week and not enough places to go around. There are popular UK retirement packages that only can invest in about 20 companies and I suspect everyone one of them is way over valued.

  35. Some of that VC should have gone toward marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cause I haven't heard of a single one of those companies. If you can't afford to advertise, you can't afford to be in business.

  36. Yik Yak Died Because it was no longer Anon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep... dead app.. due to implemented "you must identify yourself".

    The best thing about yik yak was the fact u could post anonymously

  37. Nonaffiliate link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  38. So? VC is risky. by sabbede · · Score: 1
    Venture Capitalists know they're taking a big risk when they invest. All investment carries risk. They know they might lose more often than they win, and it's okay so long as the wins are big.

    If anything, this is a positive story about booming investment in entrepreneurship.

  39. The money has NOT gone up in smoke by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

    it has been redistributed. In this case, it has gone from the greedy filthy rich to the general population. This is a good thing.

  40. Most startups fail by cfrito · · Score: 1

    According to Forbes, 9 out of 10 startups fail. Necessarily, this is a costly process. After a failure,, many entrepreneurs pick up the pieces and try again and keep trying until they succeed. For most of them, it is a learning process. Part of that is learning how to manage risk, which is an inevitable part of running a startup or any business for that matter. Some of it is almost like random chance. All the necessary prerequisites need to come together at the right time, including a technical component that actually works and a target market that actually wants to buy what you are offering them. If any prerequisite fails to materialize when needed, the whole enterprise may flop.

  41. Definition of 'startup' by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

    startup, n.:
        An otherwise normal business which is not making money.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.