Quote from: cypherdoc on May 21, 2015, 12:58:36 AM

Quote from: smooth on May 21, 2015, 12:51:31 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on May 21, 2015, 12:40:12 AM

i'm amused by the guys here presuming that the 21 guys have not made a similar analysis. in fact, i'm sure they've made a very extensive marketing and technical analysis. Balaji and company are no slouches. they are in a different category from your normal, shoestring startup with minimal capital. Balaji is an established VC as are his cohorts. he mentions this:

"towards that end, our team of PhDs in EE from MIT, Stanford, and CMU has built not just a chip, but a full technology stack around the chip including reference devices, datasheets, a cloud backend, and software protocols. And we have already engaged with a wide variety of early access partners across the industry, from small startups to multibillion dollar hardware companies."

similarly, the list of investors includes alot of smart, analytical, successful people and companies. they surely didn't just throw their money at this w/o any research.

Vetting of a startup funding pitch always includes ensuring there is at least a plausible scenario for success, so it should be no surprise that these scenarios can be constructed. Weighing probabilities, on the other hand, is far subjective and not necessarily (in fact necessarily not) at the same level of rigor. I remain unconvinced that the valuation isn't out of whack. I most certainly would not take a piece of a $100 million funding round (which likely values the company closer to a billion) based on what we know now. There may be more we don't know, however.

It's nice to see actual numbers though, as opposed to a lot of OOMA statements about how the revenue flatly isn't significant.

but this isn't your average startup.

this is a company comprised of pre-existing industry leaders and companies that clearly are trying to change an industry.

I've been around the scene a bit. Their team and backers make the cut, but pretty much every well funded startup looks like that. There are a lot of MIT, Stanford, CMU, etc. PhD. and second-time entrepreneurs around. A whole lot.

That valuation at their stage is out of line, even considering the team (again with the caveat that we don't know everything). VC's most certainly do screw up and burn money on big deals. Often it's the most impressive startups that encourage overpaying (what idiot would overpay for a bunch of amateurs?).