,
11 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
En el artículo "End of Cycle" de Elad Gil explica mucho mejor que yo (y sin socarronería) por qué es relevante la distinción tech vs no tech. Abro hilo con las citas más importantes blog.eladgil.com/2016/07/end-of…
"One sign that technology markets often exhibit at the tail end of a cycle is a fast diversification of the types of startups getting funded. In 2002-03 people started looking at CleanTech, Nanotech etc - industries that obviously all eventually failed"
Similarly, today we are seeing a shift to a boom in the variety and type of companies being funded as tech investors pursue other areas that I would characterize as "software aware" versus "software driven".
While I think the range of markets about to be transformed by software is large, the interpretation of what is truly a tech business is being misapplied. People are starting to apply software valuations to low gross margin, physical good businesses that are not software business
In other words, lots of tech investors are now investing in areas they do not understand, at valuation multiples that do not make sense for these alternate businesses. This is similar to the 2001-2003 bad period of cleantech and nanotech.
Tech investors are desperate for the next new thing [..] investing in food, hardware, traditional biotech, oil and gas, and other industries they know nothing about. Is this a sign of software transforming these areas, or unstated (and perhaps, not even self-aware) desperation?
Lots of capital gets invested in areas that do not merit the investment, there is a flurry of activity that looks important (Cleantech), but ultimately this activity does not yield great returns. Typically these areas are ones where the investors lack real expertise.
These businesses all have fundamentally different development and ship cycles, distribution models, and margin structures than software. However, investors are applying tech multiples expectations to these radically different types of businesses. This is unlikely to end well.
Software is truly eating the world, but you need what is fundamentally a software business in these traditional industries to make a real difference.
Too many people are saying "Oh this biotech is using algorithms so it is a tech company" even though it is really still a drug company with all the standard drug business timelines and fundamentals. They are merely using software for one part of their approach...
If you are using software but the business fundamentals have not shifted-than the startup is probably not that differentiated and will not merit tech multiples. A software-enabled, network connected, crowd funded, smart toaster is, when all is said and done, still just a toaster.
