Comments on: Reactions to Fred Wilson’s Post on Liquidity – We Have a Price Gap

By: canada mystery author

canada mystery author — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:23:31 +0000

Hi,
Thanks for posting the interesting topic .
Keep up posting good work……………………… : )

By: Live chat

Live chat — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:35:37 +0000

I totally agree on this Mate!

By: sex toys

sex toys — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:03:53 +0000

thanks!

By: will i am music

will i am music — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 09:27:54 +0000

As popular as Twitter is, it has around 1 million or two users – that's hardly huge in Internet terms. ——————– this is because the mobile internet is not accessible in most third world countries.

By: chudson

chudson — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:01:18 +0000

Secondmidnite,

This is a very nice insight – I do agree that we'll need a new or more effective business model if some of these companies are going to become VC-funded success stories.

By: secondmidnite

secondmidnite — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 13:21:32 +0000

I think I would have put YouTube just left of the middle (on the side of "acquirable"). Although they had huge traffic, their profitability potential was/is questionable. It's not clear what they would have done had Google not bought them at the time.

Overall, Charles, I think you're touching on the notion that Silicon Valley economics break down at a certain point in an industry's cycle. The VC model always requires a second buyer and always requires a large valuation. The internet no longer requires large capital to gain large scale. So for an internet company to garner a large price requires a significant business model. We just haven't seen one of those in a long time.

So I think the punch line to your article is that the business models of current "Web 2.0" companies are generally incompatible with the standard VC model.

By: chudson

chudson — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:30:15 +0000

Steven,

Very good pints on your comment above. I do think part of the issue is that companies are beginning to achieve valuations that can only be justified if they “break out” and become more mainstream overall. As popular as Twitter is, it has around 1 million or two users – that's hardly huge in Internet terms.

By: stevenloi

stevenloi — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:46:02 +0000

Nice to see you added the Disqus system now, Charles.

I liked the idea of having a private market from Fred's blog/disqus-sions. No matter how great these services are, the market is a little over saturated with great products. Seemingly it is a “buyer's market” because the big boys doesn't need all those services quite yet. I think we've satisfied many of the “mass audiences” need/wants online (so folks outside of Silicon Valley and not working at Facebook/Google/Yelp/etc.) The mass audience for goodness sake still are figuring out what the hell is Twitter and why it's important. What Tumblr is and what the hell happened to Xanga. They are wondering why the hell they see so many damn updates in their Facebook newsfeed with redundant postings of the same message – first by twitter, then by friendfeed, finally by socialthing!. In short, in order for this web market to move for investors, the mass public needs to be educated and adopt the product as well. They need to catch up with the current technologies available.

Or else, we (being the web entrepreneurs) and others (investors, web/tech. industry) are creating our own bubble.