Debating the Tech Bubble

The Economist magazine pits Steve Blank and Ben Horowitz against one another in debating whether we are in a “new tech bubble”.

Bubble

I am closer to Steve Blank’s position than Ben’s — the latter’s position is too clever, theoretical and parsed — but whatever we are in could go on for some time. As an aside, Blank’s homage to Horowitz’s partner’s ever-misspelled surname, is nice, what with Steve mentioning Linked-in, Linked-In, & LinkedIn. Wait, it’s not an Andreessen homage?

Anyway, thoughts?

Related posts:

  1. The Tech Non-Bubble, Tigers, and Scraped Plates
  2. The Tech Bubble in the WSJ
  3. Oil Just Out-Bubbled the Tech Bubble
  4. The (Tech Bubble) Boys are Back in Town
  5. Is IBM Really a Tech Tell?

Comments

  1. Brett Stohlton says:

    Why so many double negatives?

  2. While I have deep respect for both points of view, I tend to lean more toward early bubble. Of course, we won't call this a bubble if it deflates slowly or if the forecasts underlying the valuations turn out to be more right than wrong. Until we get to what we generally consider fairly- or under-valued companies, I expect that we will have an long and interesting debate.

    Scott Maxwell
    OpenView Venture Parnters

  3. Lightway says:

    Basically because of the QE1 and QE2 money floating around, it has to flow into something. Alot of the momentum guys from the late 1990s simply ran with what they knew, and went into tech. The difference this time is that almost all of the technology firms are profitable, some extremely profitable.

    Also, CRM has been wildy overvalued for years before QE1 or QE2.

    This is a runup, but may not a bubble that actually pops, it will just slowly deflate as the steroids are taken away.