I suppose Cuban's comments ring true if you think that Twitter and Facebook are adding no value.
I am unsure how any rational technology-minded person could state that they add no value; the idea that a technology which is one of the first Governments try to ban when they are under fire -- that the technology must not be worth anything -- is pretty staggering.
Facebook has a pretty clear path to socially connecting THE ENTIRE WORLD via the Internet, and has proven it can do it in a cashflow-positive way.
I fundamentally don't understand the 'bubble' complaints right now: these companies are the anti-boo.com's of our time: Wildly successful, working, scaling businesses which millions of people rely on every minute to do their work and socializing.
Focusing on valuation for smaller companies also seems silly to me: the YC class that just got $150k per company will be able to punch out some incredibly great and useful technology for that money. In 1999, that money would have purchased 2-5 servers, and no co-location for them. Really. You can worry about a bubble, but if these companies even produce 300k in value, then the investors didn't invest in a bubble, they got their principal back plus a little.
I do think it likely we'll swing back to a slightly less founder-friendly funding regime at some point in the future, but it may also be that we're just at a new plateau given what's currently possible in software. Another shift might change funding dynamics again in our industry; but right now, a whole lot of useful tool can be created for a couple hundred thousand dollars.
Well, calling it a chain letter / pyramid scheme is incendiary without a doubt. On the other hand, we're talking about Cuban, so I guess your point stands. Once de-Cubanized, he said just what you said.
"Facebook has a pretty clear path to socially connecting THE ENTIRE WORLD via the Internet, and has proven it can do it in a cashflow-positive way."
Yes, I see that they can connect. And maybe tomorrows revolutions will use facebook -- but the fact remains that I value my privacy and those of my social relationships. That's just it.
You might, but all the people using Facebook really don't. Especially the whole 13-33 contingent raised with the internet - the convenience of being able to keep in touch with your friends circle is worth more to them than their privacy.
If you think privacy concerns are going to hinder Facebook's profitability you're completely wrong.
I am unsure how any rational technology-minded person could state that they add no value; the idea that a technology which is one of the first Governments try to ban when they are under fire -- that the technology must not be worth anything -- is pretty staggering.
Facebook has a pretty clear path to socially connecting THE ENTIRE WORLD via the Internet, and has proven it can do it in a cashflow-positive way.
I fundamentally don't understand the 'bubble' complaints right now: these companies are the anti-boo.com's of our time: Wildly successful, working, scaling businesses which millions of people rely on every minute to do their work and socializing.
Focusing on valuation for smaller companies also seems silly to me: the YC class that just got $150k per company will be able to punch out some incredibly great and useful technology for that money. In 1999, that money would have purchased 2-5 servers, and no co-location for them. Really. You can worry about a bubble, but if these companies even produce 300k in value, then the investors didn't invest in a bubble, they got their principal back plus a little.
I do think it likely we'll swing back to a slightly less founder-friendly funding regime at some point in the future, but it may also be that we're just at a new plateau given what's currently possible in software. Another shift might change funding dynamics again in our industry; but right now, a whole lot of useful tool can be created for a couple hundred thousand dollars.