I didn't knew the meaning of "unicorn" when applied to companies. Maybe I'm the only person who still hadn't, but if there are others - to save them a search query:<p>"A unicorn is a privately held startup company valued at over $1 billion." - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn_(finance)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn_(finance)</a>
"Wow, 11 of these 50 were funded by Y Combinator:" - Paul Graham via Twitter - worth a read of that thread in which PG also notes that he has had nothing to do w/class selection since 2014:<p><a href="https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1095075300852019201" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1095075300852019201</a>
The online pharmacy (Alto Pharmacy) and online doctor (KRY) are the ones that sound like they could be unicorns, but they are going against entrenched interests.<p>Uber took on cab drivers and won. Doctors and pharmacists have much stronger quasi-unions (the AMA and AphA).
Earnin is a scam that disproportionately targets young poor black/latino people. It's JG Wentworth in an app. Doesn't count as a unicorn because it's not innovative at all.
Demographics:<p>21 in California (16 in San Fran)<p>11 in APAC<p>9 on the East Coast (including MapBox)<p>3 in Europe<p>3 in S. America<p>3 in "other US"
Seems like the linked article is more an analysis / summary and doesn't actually have the list, which is in <i>this</i> linked article:<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/10/technology/these-50-start-ups-may-be-the-next-unicorns.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/10/technology/these-50-start...</a><p>Did they rejigger things since the submission?
They site a lot of stuff from cbinsights. I don't know about others but I find cbinsights analysis a bit sloppy sometimes. They kept crowing about the potentials blockchain and how it was the future all through the crash as though it wasn't even taking place. They also had this piece about we work which painted them in glowing colors right in the aftermath of the additional funding from softbank not coming through, giving fluffy reasons why they think their still going to continue to upend the industry. Plus all their emails end with "I love you" which is getting old and annoying. Not intentionally smashing them but just making the point that aside from the numeric data they collect on startups which is pretty cool, I'm skeptical about using their analysis pieces as a proper source
It looks like the list and the commentary are on separate pages:<p>List: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/10/technology/these-50-start-ups-may-be-the-next-unicorns.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/10/technology/these-50-start...</a><p>Commentary: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/10/technology/new-wave-unicorn-start-ups.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/10/technology/new-wave-unico...</a>
They should describe how they came up with this list.
For example, Alto pharmacy, which appears to primarily operate in California, is on the list. They raised $50 million last December. Capsule pharmacy, which essentially does the same thing, primarily operates out of NYC. They also raised $50 million a few months earlier, in August 2018, but are not on this list.
Wonder why?
I'm not sure how up to date the wiki unicorn list is, but for those interested:<p>China (131)
U.S. (85)
India (20)<p>----<p>Some of those listed will likely fall-off in the near future (e.g. Ofo).