TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

4 Signs We're Not in a Tech Bubble

23 点作者 monty_singh大约 13 年前

12 条评论

dkrich大约 13 年前
First off, the author misrepresented some facts. Groupon is NOT profitable. Nor is Pandora or Zynga, and Linkedin trades at roughly 900 times earnings. And I suppose this is a matter of debate, but I severely disagree with his depiction of these as stable companies. Pandora is operating in an ultra-competitive market with razor-thin margins and enormous overhead. I personally doubt they are going to survive much longer. I'll go out on what some would consider a limb and put Zynga in the same category, albeit one that will survive a bit longer.<p>But to his point about a possible bubble- I think it all depends upon exactly how you define this thing we call a bubble. If you compare the climate of today's dot com startups with that of the 90's, certainly we are nowhere close. Very few internet companies are going public these days, and those that are aren't enough to create a bubble large enough that a collapse would mean more than a microscopic percentage of the market at large losing a substantial amount of money. Most employees are not paid entirely in stock, so you wouldn't see a whole class of people go from millionaires to penniless in a matter of days.<p>However, if you define a bubble simply as a disproportionately large number of businesses in a particular industry being obscenely overvalued, I think we've been there for a few years. I don't think it will end abruptly from a string of bankruptcies or a market crash like the last one. I think it will end when the market becomes sufficiently saturated with businesses creating such a small amount of value that other industries become more attractive for investment. When the money leaves, people will pursue businesses in those industries.
评论 #3764602 未加载
moocow01大约 13 年前
Probably not a popular opinion around here but Id say we are well on our way to the precipice.<p>I hear the line about how the companies are better this time around but I'm really not so sure about that on a macro scale. I'd be much more encouraged if more (funded) startups were seriously aligned to try to combat the country's obvious problem areas - health, education, finance, etc. There are some good ones out there but the majority of funding is getting piled into a lot of stuff that is dead on arrival due to a lack of need and this problem just seems to be getting worse.<p>On top of it the money and hoopla is exponentially drawing in a lot more folks naively looking to make a quick buck and when they show up in force it usually means the game is largely up.
评论 #3764359 未加载
评论 #3765310 未加载
potatolicious大约 13 年前
I remain unconvinced.<p>The list is just proof that we're not in a tech bubble <i>of the scale and severity as the first one</i>. I'll agree with that, but there's still an enormous amount of overvaluation going on.<p>The fact that, if and when the bubble pops, it won't be as bad as last time, provides only a minor amount of comfort.
stretchwithme大约 13 年前
These claims boil down to 1) Stuff is better, and 2) Only companies with revenues are going public.<p>But fewer companies are going public at all in the US because of the huge regulatory burden of Sarbanes-Oxley.<p>And more baskets could simply mean more bubbles.<p>The fact is that the Federal Reserve greatly expanded the money supply and that must go somewhere. It usually flows into whatever has been rising naturally and makes it rise faster. Too fast.<p>So instead of normal growth, with new industries gradually replacing old, we go from bubble to bubble.
kls大约 13 年前
<i>The infrastructure is better</i><p>It's funny when this subject is brought up it is always about the nets infrastructure and never about logistics which have improved enormously from the income of the .com boom as well as advances in technology in their sector. Fedex and UPS are now shipping far more for far cheaper than they ever have, the first bubble helped them improve their infrastructure and that is a huge piece of the puzzle as to why we are able to handle more innovation now.<p>That being said, I do think the scrutiny and due diligence some investors are doing lacks rigor as such some of the companies will fail, the real question is are the successes enough to offset the bad investments. Once that scale tips we are running up the bubble, I don't think we are there yet, but it will bubble at some point, as one of the only bright sectors of the economy it cannot be ignored for long. People are desperate to get their money in an inflating bet, at the moment the barrier to entry to do that with Angle and VC investing is high which creates a form of self regulating market.
PaulHoule大约 13 年前
I think it is all complicated by the fact that the stock market and real money funds and hedge funds all get returns that suck now so that people with real $ get the idea that they might as well pay a bunch of programmers to party it up in a a mansion in the Hollywood Hills and I'll be looking for the bathroom talking to the project manager downstairs looking at the OSHA sign while upstairs some guy's had too many shots of whatever it is he's shooting is jumping into the wrong end of the pool.<p>So long as interest rates are too low and you can't get returns doing anything responsible, people will do irresponsible things like listen to Glenn Beck and call up Goldline and get ripped off for some gold coins.<p>That's just the way it is.
评论 #3764651 未加载
nl大约 13 年前
I think Ben Horowitz said it better:<p><i>He has a simple response to those who say Silicon Valley is in the midst of another bubble, including those who have criticised his firm's large investments as having played a role in inflating the bubble. It's LL Cool J's song Going Back to Cali: "I'm going back to Cali ... hmm, I don't think so." "It's totally about the way he said it — 'Hmm, I don't think so' — which is how I was feeling about the bubble talk," Horowitz said.</i>[1]<p>His complete argument[2] makes a lot of sense, but I just liked the quote above.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/technology-news/how-ben-rapped-his-way-to-silicon-valley-stardom-20120220-1tjev.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/technology-news/h...</a><p>[2] <a href="http://bhorowitz.com/2011/03/24/bubble-trouble-i-don%E2%80%99t-think-so/" rel="nofollow">http://bhorowitz.com/2011/03/24/bubble-trouble-i-don%E2%80%9...</a>
评论 #3764625 未加载
shangrila大约 13 年前
The #1 sign we are in a bubble is that people are writing articles saying we are not in a bubble.<p>For reference, compare the following two editions of a book regarding the recent housing bubble. These were written by the chief economist for the National Association of Realtors at the time, David Lereah.<p>Original title (2005):<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Are-Missing-Real-Estate-Boom/dp/0385514344" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Are-Missing-Real-Estate-Boom/dp/038551...</a><p>"Updated" title (2006):<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Real-Estate-Boom-Will-Bust/dp/0385514352" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Real-Estate-Boom-Will-Bust/dp/03855143...</a><p>I think we all know what happened next.<p>When people start spewing denial, it's time to think about heading for the exits.
pacaro大约 13 年前
The metric falls down if the company is pushing a 3D-printer for making ice sculptures.
gfaremil大约 13 年前
Maybe we are not in tech bubble but there a lot of crappy companies raising a lot of capital.
_zeo8大约 13 年前
The best signal pointing we are not in a tech bubble is the amount of people talking about we are in a bubble. On a real bubble only a small minority (often ignored, despised or even ridiculed by the maiority) think there is a bubble. I don't see this happening now.
评论 #3764384 未加载
billpatrianakos大约 13 年前
One sign we <i>are</i> in a tech bubble: People feel the need to explain why we're not. I'm not trying to be a smartass. Honestly, it seems like we're just all trying to convince each other there isn't a bubble. It's so simple to see and that's probably why no one sees it. We're in so deep that we look at everything but the obvious. We've got a billion tech companies that take funding first and decide how to monetize later. Most of them fail. Those that succeed still don't quite make it to figuring out how to monetize. In essence, we have a lot of neat toys using super cool tech that get funded but never quite get how to be a business in that investors seem to be the only source of their revenue. Eventually someone has to get paid back and if tech companies aren't making a buck and investors are being paid back eventually there's no one left to invest and the bottom falls out. It's more complicated than that but looking at the complexity is what tricks you into thinking the bubble isn't there.
评论 #3764406 未加载
评论 #3764395 未加载