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。

Why Twitter's IPO is Bad for Startups

106 点作者 jackaltman超过 11 年前

24 条评论

patio11超过 11 年前
If Airbnb is currently priced at about $2 billion, that&#x27;s about 1&#x2F;4 of an IHG Hotels (they own the Holiday Inn brand and another dozen or so).<p>That sounds richly valued to me, but not insane. IHG (disclaimer: shareholder and double super platinum for life due to often staying there for business travel) has been trying to move, for years, into a capital structure which Airbnb had from day one: they want a cut of every night&#x27;s stay without actually owning any hotel property because that&#x27;s a capital-intensive location-dependent slow-growth business. They&#x27;ve got a substantial scale advantage on Airbnb (~600,000 rooms which each rent 300+ nights per year, whereas Airbnb does about 50 million nights a year at systematically lower price points), but 5~10% a year is great growth for them, and Airbnb is growing at about 100% every 6 months.<p>There exist significant risks to the company, from the legal issues to merely not sustaining the hockey stick for long enough to justify the valuation, but the people with money on the line are mostly rich and sophisticated. If they lose their investment, oh well, capitalism happens.<p>It&#x27;s categorically better than when $X00,000 of pet food sold at a $Y0 million loss was valued in the billions.
评论 #6694426 未加载
评论 #6694445 未加载
评论 #6695546 未加载
评论 #6694475 未加载
chaz超过 11 年前
I think the Twitter IPO is very good for startups. The wealth event for a lot of employees unlocks a pool of talented employees who are flush with experience, ready to take on new challenges, and armed with a network. A bit of money in the pocket is that they&#x27;re less dependent upon short-term income and are willing to take on a fair amount of risk and more focused on long-term goals. Many will start a new company or join as an early&#x2F;senior employee at a fast growing one. Some of them will go on to be angel investors and VCs. Some will just drive Porsches and play golf.<p>This cycle has renewed itself many times in the Bay Area, with recent examples likes Nescape, eBay, PayPal, Google, Facebook, and LinkedIn. I feel this refertilization is not nearly as strong in many other cities like NYC.
评论 #6694436 未加载
评论 #6694384 未加载
评论 #6694366 未加载
nikcub超过 11 年前
&gt; This valuation (along with the recent surge in Facebook stock) will send a rising tide of valuations rippling down through the ecosystem until “my friend and I have a pitch deck and an idea for a web app” is worth $10 million.<p>The opposite has been shown to be true (and correlated with my own experience) for early stage companies. The biggest startup valuation bubbles happen when there are no public tech companies for money to be invested in (eg. the &#x27;07 startup bubble and more recently in &#x27;11).<p>With Facebook, LinkedIn, Pandora, and now Twitter etc. public early stage startup valuations have shrunk again.<p>Where it does get competitive is in the later stage rounds, but that was happening anyway as the mega-funds like DST competed with traditional VC and mezzanine funding (the business model here changed, as companies wanted to go public later).<p>&gt; Snapchat and Pinterest are worth around $4 billion dollars each. Evernote and Airbnb are each worth over $2 billion. Path is worth $500 million.<p>Snapchat never raised on $4b, that was a rumor (and it continues to get cited as signs of a bubble even though the round never happen). The only other valuation here that would be out now is Path, and that is only because that startup has struggled. Were it a real bubble, Path would not have any problems raising a new round at $1b, fact is they are laying people off and searching for bridge loans from friends).<p>&gt; “People who think the company is overvalued,” they scoff, “just don’t get the power of Twitter.”<p>There is nothing magic to understand, the business model is centuries old - sell services to individuals whose attention you have. Twitter currently has 250M subscribers, larger than most traditional media companies (that required printing presses, expensive TV spectrum to be purchased, entire studios like 30rock, dealing with the politics of media ownership, expensive distribution etc.) and growing quicker.<p>I am a twitter user, I don&#x27;t watch television anymore and I don&#x27;t pick up newspapers or magazines. For advertisers to reach me and people like me, they need to find me on Twitter (or others on Facebook - this is the competition).<p>The Twitter IPO is <i>great</i> for startups, for a few reasons: first, it returns money to investors who will inturn invest in the next generation of startups, it reinforces the hit parade and that the industry depends on, and it will bloom and entire new generation of angel investors who will be supporting the ecosystem (in the same way former Google employees did 10 years ago and FB employees did 2 years ago).<p>edit: and I think the Buffett quote argues <i>for</i> Twitter, i&#x27;ve seen that quote used before to argue against Bitcoin, but not against an actual company that is producing hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and growing at almost 100% a year.
davidu超过 11 年前
I think lots of things are bad for startups, but Twitter&#x27;s IPO isn&#x27;t one of them -- and this post didn&#x27;t convince me otherwise.<p>In fact, lots of points made in this post seem to sound as though they are factual, but I&#x27;m not sure they are and would likely argue the opposite point of the author:<p>&quot;The real problem here is that we increasingly live in a world where technology companies are valued on emotional whims and promises of unbelievable future growth.&quot;<p>Technology companies are almost universally about promise and potential and always have been. Read Crossing the Chasm to understand why that is. At the time that the private market investors care about them, they are so early in the selling motions that their early success in a tiny subset of the market is indicative of later potential. That&#x27;s why VCs exist. To see something with early potential, pay a premium (at times) to get a part of it, foster it&#x27;s development, and then ride it into reality and receive a terrific return for the foresight and fortitude.<p>The pattern recognition there is unmistakeable. Where it gets challenged is in the fickle and finicky consumer market where externalities are more likely to cause massive changes in momentum (See: Path can&#x27;t maintain the momentum of fundraising).<p>&quot;A surge on IPO day is good of course, but 15-20% is more than enough; 75% simply means the company was mis-priced and that Twitter left over a billion in cash on the table.&quot;<p>This is also not a factually true statement. Because a small float was offered, and demand was prescriptive by the bankers, it&#x27;s impossible to say that because of how it ended, trying to raise the price to $40 would have resulted in the same outcome.<p>If Twitter wanted to fully maximize their first day gains, there are dutch style IPO auctions that can be done to better match demand for an offering. Google did this.<p>I&#x27;m not going to continue, but I guess this is a great headline with a poorly made point. I&#x27;m not sure what the goal here was.
评论 #6694351 未加载
AndrewKemendo超过 11 年前
&gt;Snapchat and Pinterest are worth around $4 billion dollars each. Evernote and Airbnb are each worth over $2 billion. Path is worth $550 million. By comparison, Peabody Energy, the largest coal company in the world which owns almost 10 billion tons of coal, is worth about $5 billion.<p>I see fewer and fewer comparisons like these between tech companies and brick and mortar&#x2F;commodity companies and I think it is a shame. To me such comparisons do more to highlight how broken the financial markets are, though I am not exactly sure why. It seems like investment priorities or consumer demands are out of whack when electrical utility companies (PEPCO) are valued less than social media platforms (FB).
评论 #6695019 未加载
评论 #6694375 未加载
评论 #6694350 未加载
zaidf超过 11 年前
Twitter IPO is bad for start ups because its fueled by inexperienced investors who missed out on Facebook. What they don&#x27;t realize is that twitter is no where near facebook&#x27;s trajectory on any of the metrics that matter(revenue, profit, user growth).
评论 #6694413 未加载
DenisM超过 11 年前
The article doesn&#x27;t actually answer the headline question. So, valuations are running sky-high. Ok. Why is it bad for startups?
评论 #6694256 未加载
pyrrhotech超过 11 年前
Blame bubble Ben. QE is 90% of the issue here. The market is addicted now. Great recession 2.0 will probably hit next fall
pkinsel超过 11 年前
I agree that valuations are too high for companies with low or nonexistent revenues. However, this analysis ignores a) startup ideas and their opportunities are unique and b) markets are winner take all.<p>You lost me with the trickle-down argument, “So if Twitter is worth $25 billion and its size is X,” thinks the VC to himself smugly, “this other startup must be worth $250 million because its size is 0.01X.”<p>Is the other startup doing something as unique and compelling? And does that startup have the opportunity to own that equally unique and compelling space outright?<p>Twitter&#x27;s valuation is born from its opportunity to be THE real-time information platform for the web. I would argue that Snapchat&#x27;s opportunity (to be yet another photo social network) is nowhere near as compelling.<p>Sure, valuations are too high across the board, but I do not see Twitter&#x27;s IPO as bad for startups. If anything, it shows that unique concepts with the opportunity to own their market globally are highly rewarded by the public markets.<p>As is often the case, I agree with much of your content, but take issue with your sensational headline :)
neovi超过 11 年前
I love these posts, ones that deal with understanding the investment side of startups. With that said, I hope you could reply because I&#x27;m an amateur in this field compared to you [quick google search] and would like to learn from this discussion.<p>- who are you going after here? In your post the people I see are the unsophisticated investors who go for emotion&#x2F;speculation rather than business perspective. Those that say with their gut &quot;I love this product, it&#x27;s so influential, therefore it&#x27;s worth $50&#x2F;share&quot; and do off-the-cuff calculations &quot;Facebook is priced at X so Twitter is around X, too&quot; instead of doing hard research. One can see how it&#x27;s bad to have these kinds of people involved in a relatively small field (ie VC), but again, your headline is towards startups and not the investors just noted.<p>- don&#x27;t startups stand to profit most from these valuations? The problem I see is in having the aforementioned investors. If we have people running around trying to get a slice of the pie, it looks like they&#x27;ll pump-and-dump. They&#x27;ll pump their cash into whatever startup seems to have a chance of opportunity and then walk out when it&#x27;s profitable enough. Win&#x2F;win, except that means the investors don&#x27;t really care what the company is doing or up to, they just want to profit.<p>- with what I just mentioned, startups stand to profit because more opportunity is available. The downside I see is there being a higher chance of shallow investments. When investing in a company, you want to really understand it and know it, but with these valuations and profits, it seems the headline shouldn&#x27;t be &quot;Why Twitter&#x27;s IPO is Bad for Startups&quot; but &quot;Why Twitter&#x27;s IPO is Bad for Sophisticated Investments.&quot;<p>note: It&#x27;s pretty difficult trying to write out thoughts on here, so hopefully I made some sense. If not, just ignore it as beginner&#x27;s mind.
wepple超过 11 年前
$4bn for snapchat? These kinds of valuations don&#x27;t stack up to me - sure, startups are speculation not investment, but a four billion dollar valuation is an incredibly hefty speculation.<p>my bet is that these billion dollar speculative valuations will continue amongst growing startups until a few of them fail to build solid profitability and fold - then we&#x27;ll have a classic bubble burst through lack of share market confidence, and availability of cash and growth with slow.<p>then, cue blog posts about &quot;the virtues of being an organic-growth hacker&quot;
sjtgraham超过 11 年前
&gt; “So if Twitter is worth $25 billion and its size is X,” thinks the VC to himself smugly, “this other startup must be worth $250 million because its size is 0.01X.”<p>Isn&#x27;t the main justification for these valuations growth and potential maximum size? Surely an investor can&#x27;t extrapolate a $250MM valuation based on relative size with a straight face, especially as their metrics will also look quite different.
vampirechicken超过 11 年前
The market is not rational. To not ascribe rationality to the market. Do not anthropomorphize the market.
Guest98130超过 11 年前
Anyone catch the latest episode of Dragon&#x27;s Den Canada yesterday?<p><a href="http://www.cbc.ca/dragonsden/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cbc.ca&#x2F;dragonsden&#x2F;</a><p>I think that&#x27;s only viewable in Canada, but Canadians, play the video and watch the first pitch.<p>These kids develop an iPhone app for tracking and recommending your workouts. They&#x27;re asking $100,000 for 10% of their business. Their plan for generating revenue is converting users from their free app to pro at $4.99&#x2F;mo, $29.99&#x2F;yr. So far, 12,000 downloads on their app, and they say 1% are converting to paid. That means 120 paid users, averaging say $15 each, so they&#x27;ve made roughly $1,800 in revenue.<p>What the hell? $1,800, and they value their company at one million dollars? They&#x27;re not even paying themselves, and they&#x27;re in one of the most saturated niches in the world, with already countless others well established and successful in that market. What blows my mind even more, one of the investors offers $100,000 for 20%, with 25% royalties until they&#x27;re paid back. They turn it down.
anovikov超过 11 年前
Twitter has a power to change the fates not of just people, but of whole nations. Coal on the other hand, is intrinsically worthless: we have more coal than we can afford to burn due to global warming, so availability of coal is not a limiting factor.
anuraj超过 11 年前
Just a correction - Coal India Limited (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_India_Limited" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Coal_India_Limited</a>) is the largest coal company in the world - not Peabody Energy.
评论 #6694829 未加载
beautybasics超过 11 年前
Imagine we were in 1890&#x27;s<p>- There is biggest horse carriage company<p>- And a dominant railway company<p>Here comes { Ford, GM, Cadillac........}<p>Every investor at that time can make a case that how could a transnational railway&#x2F;carriage company is worth less than any motor company.
评论 #6694492 未加载
AznHisoka超过 11 年前
All valid points, but a bit too removed from the 99%.<p>Here&#x27;s the real reason Twitter&#x27;s IPO is bad for most startups:<p>Their API is no longer going to be free in the future. That or they&#x27;re going to impose harsher rate limits.
brackin超过 11 年前
Coming from an investor, they&#x27;re obviously looking for better terms. This is a somewhat biased perspective.
l33tbro超过 11 年前
&quot;Once my sympathies for Twitter subsided ... &quot; Right, so when is the candlelight vigil again?
dinkumthinkum超过 11 年前
Snapchat ... $40 billion ... ? Does money not mean anything anymore?
thejosh超过 11 年前
not making money is bad for startups.
评论 #6694306 未加载
评论 #6694302 未加载
评论 #6694845 未加载
评论 #6694320 未加载
crassus超过 11 年前
Twitter&#x2F;snapchat are media companies in competition with prime time television and daily soaps. It&#x27;s okay, IMO, if justification for their valuation consists of mushy statements about user feelings. It&#x27;s their business.
rafe33超过 11 年前
Uh, &quot;Path is worth $550 million&quot; ?!<p>What crack is he smoking?
评论 #6694324 未加载
评论 #6694336 未加载