back

by paulpauper·10y ago·view on hn ↗
The author mentions the worst companies that even I, web 2.0 bull, would never invest in http://greyenlightenment.com/billion-dollar-startup-club-pic...

He mentions box.net but ignores dropbox. No mention of Air BNB, Uber, Snapchat, Slack. Although these aren't public, there is an investor bias against hardware, but such a bias is warranted given the storied history of once high-flying hardware companies eventually soaking investors due to profit margin compression, competition, or becoming fads or obsoleted, examples being Sony, Atari, Garmin, Nintendo, Sega, Fitbit, Nokia, Motorola, Gopro, Jawbone, Skull Candy, Research in Motion, and many more.

Yeah, there is valuation pressure, but for companies that aren't very good. This is evidence investors are becoming smarter and more selective, whereas in the 90's a company like Fitbit would have had a PE ratio of 500 instead of 50, which is what it is right now.

2 comments
Gopro is obsoleted? Just curious why you think so.
I have an opinion on this and will take a shot at it, would be interested to see further discussion. In a recent conference call GoPro's CEO commented that most video shot with GoPro cameras are home videos, not action videos. GoPro may have become less relevant because smartphones can now shoot 4k video at 30+ fps. Why spend $400+ for a GoPro when you have a device that is perfectly good for what you will be using it for already? Yes they're doing VR now but as we've seen from the limited uptake of their 3d kits, that won't be big enough to justify GoPro's valuation.
Beside action videos, every other device is better suited for family videos/photos. A current gen smartphone can shot 4k videos and 20+ megapixel photos just fine (and some of them are dust and water proof) - and all with a very easy user interface.
its easy to drag hardware through the mud when you only pick losers and ignore the likes of myspace and aol.