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.

22 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. 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.
  2. 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/
  3. 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 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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"?
    4. 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."
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 raftpeople · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  7. 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
  8. 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.

  9. 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

  10. 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.
  11. 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/
  12. 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.

  13. 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.