[fatalisk]

That's not true. My understanding was that the dot-com bubble was primarily a result of naive investment in technology. My point was that investors today are way more sophisticated when it comes to tech, therefore, they won't be blindly betting on every internet or mobile company. Venture Hack's Naval Ravikant describes the bifurcation of the funding situation in technology, where there is a long-tail of companies investors don't view as remarkable and so don't invest. Remember, those dot-bombs were pretty much worthless from the start in terms of the value they provided, and they had enormous nonsensical valuations. There was no such thing as determining product-market fit or customer development before product development, or even a blogosphere of information related to this kind of investment. Both investors and entrepreneurs are more prepared and more knowledgable today than they were in 1999. So I don't think the same kind of devastating burst is very likely.

[chopsueyar]

I disagree. There were quite a few dot-coms that could have been successful had they IPO'ed before the crash, and additional dot-coms that should have never been acquired, yet because of such an acquisition, allowed the ownership of the Dallas Mavericks.

The burst will not be as devastating simply because not as many people are directly involved.

I am still using eBay and Amazon, and even Yahoo is still around (which acquired Viaweb).

Do you honestly think Twitter is worth $8 billion dollars without a business model?

Please, read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Exit-Strategy-Douglas-Rushkoff/dp/1887...