←back to thread

387 points reaperducer | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.731s | source
Show context
jacquesm ◴[] No.45772081[source]
These kinds of deals were very much a la mode just prior to the .com crash. Companies would buy advertising, then the websites and ad agencies would buy their services and they'd spend it again on advertising. The end result is immense revenues without profits.
replies(6): >>45772090 #>>45772213 #>>45772293 #>>45772318 #>>45772433 #>>45774073 #
zemvpferreira ◴[] No.45772318[source]
There’s one key difference in my opinion: pre-.com deals were buying revenue with equity and nothing else. It was growth for growth’s sake. All that scale delivered mostly nothing.

OpenAI applies the same strategy, but they’re using their equity to buy compute that is critical to improving their core technology. It’s circular, but more like a flywheel and less like a merry-go-round. I have some faith it could go another way.

replies(13): >>45772378 #>>45772392 #>>45772490 #>>45772554 #>>45772661 #>>45772731 #>>45772738 #>>45772759 #>>45773088 #>>45773089 #>>45773096 #>>45773105 #>>45774229 #
_heimdall ◴[] No.45772661[source]
I think that, at best, that description boils down to Nvidia, Oracle, etc inventing fake wealth to build something and OpenAI building their own fake wealth by getting to use that new compute effectively for free.

There are physical products involved, but the situation otherwise feels very similar to ads prior to dotcom.

replies(1): >>45772724 #
slashdev ◴[] No.45772724[source]
The same way the stock market invents a trillion dollars of fake wealth on a strong up day?

That's capital markets working as intended. It's not necessarily doomed to end in a fiery crash, although corrections along the way are a natural part of the process.

It seems very bubbly to me, but not dotcom level bubbly. Not yet anyway. Maybe we're in 1998 right now.

replies(4): >>45772870 #>>45772910 #>>45773371 #>>45773746 #
teiferer ◴[] No.45773371[source]
> It seems very bubbly to me, but not dotcom level bubbly.

Not? Money is thrown after people without really looking at the details, just trying to get in on the hype train? That's exactly how the dotcom bubble felt like.

replies(1): >>45773583 #
slashdev ◴[] No.45773583[source]
Nvidia has a trailing PE of 50. Cisco was 200 At the height of the dotcom bubble.

Nowhere near that level. There’s real demand and real revenue this time.

It won’t grow as fast as investors expect, which makes it a bubble if I’m right about that. But not comparable to the dotcom bubble. Not yet anyway.

replies(1): >>45773780 #
1. _heimdall ◴[] No.45773780[source]
We shouldn't judge whether an indicator is stable or okay only by looking to see if its the highest historical value.

PE ratios of 50 make no sense, there is no justification for such a ratio. At best we can ignore the ratio and say PE ratios are only useful in certain situations and this isn't one of them.

Imagine if we applied similar logic to other potential concerns. Is a genocide of 500,000 people okay because others have done drastically more?

replies(1): >>45773887 #
2. slashdev ◴[] No.45773887[source]
I’m not asking if it makes sense, I’m simply pointing out that by that measure this is much less extreme than 2000. As I stated, I think we’re in a bubble, so valuations won’t make much sense.

If you have a better measure, share it. I trust data more than your or my feelings on the matter.

replies(1): >>45774755 #
3. teiferer ◴[] No.45774755[source]
Unless you have evidence that this measure of yours is a reliable predictor of how big a bubble is, it's on par with my gut feeling.