Maybe I'm just naive but I find it strange how so many companies focus so long on acquiring users and not on making money, thus forcing them to continue to get outside funding. For something like Facebook I can understand how this makes sense, but it seems as though this strategy is currently the norm rather than the exception.
We're a YC-12, VC-backed company. We were profitable within a year of the seed round. We still have the bulk of our Series A in the bank but went ahead and raised a $40 million Series B because terms were extremely good (low dilution plus we can ride out any downturn). I suspect some of these high valuations are simply investors paying a premium to buy in, not an expectation that the company is or isn't worth that much.
When I walk around SF with my PlanGrid shirt on it isn't other people in tech that say hello or know who I am... it's the guys working at construction sites. People in hard-hats and boots who tell us our software has changed their lives.
The tech press and insular SV community obsesses about the ultra-unicorns. Some of us are just busy quietly solving people's needs (usually in industries that have been long-ignored by SV/tech) and we're doing quite well for it.
There may be a bubble but if you build something that provides real, immediate value to customers then the rest of it is just noise.
1 - this is getting forwarded to our construction manager. This should help them tremendously.
2 - I got a bit of a funky layout on 6+ (safari). Not sure if it's me or not but a heads up, regardless.
Thank you sir.
 sent screenshot from phone via support email [didn't want to reply and hijack thread]
could you send along a pic of the funky layout?
- ELI5 what "free for 50 sheets" mean : This means that you can upload 50 PDFs that contain your plans (Blue Prints). So if you are undergoing house renovations and your Architect drew up plans that are 25 pages, then half of your quota would be used.
- Is there any benefit in using it for small, private projects : That depends. If you're outsourcing your work and have a contractor, then yes. The plans are initially updated on the service and any revisions that occur throughout the project would be instantly synced.
PlanGrid, from my limited exposure, is a markup tool for the initial plans. Their goal is to keep everyone in the "know" with a project that constantly changing. If you and a buddy are working on a deck, might not be useful. If you are contracting/sub-contracting work, it will be very useful.
My 2 cents.
If nothing else, if you have a construction project that has paper plans, PlanGrid is the best way to make them digital, shareable, usable by multiple people.
Is the point to be a full document control type solution (e.g. - in the same vein as Aconex) or is it a collaboration tool focused on construction? It appears to be the latter?
I guess I could just ask one of the guys I know from DPR...
If this was a tech-only forum then the business guys & gals probably wouldn't even be welcome, & vice-versa if it were a business-only forum. It's an interesting mix here that probably wouldn't normally have a lot to talk about together. But I do think it puts stars in a lot of programmers eyes who might not otherwise care about that kind of stuff.
With consumers, an item like Snapchat is the hot item today, but AIM was the hot item before that, then it was Skype, etc, etc, etc. Consumers don't have the loyalties that enterprise has. Facebook was smart because it has built an ecosystem around its graph, others haven't and I fear eventually those "utlra-unicorns" are going to face reality and that is going to hurt firms, even your own.
And with some firms their path to profitability is total nonsensical. Monetizing is extremely difficult when you can't actually charge your customers in any significant way without completely driving them away.
That is so great, this is what it's all about in my opinion.
If you think of a VC as a conglomerate, startups are money losing R&D and market research divisions, searching for the next goose that lays golden eggs.
So you could claim a company is spending too much on user acquisition, but another way of framing it is financing their fixed costs and working their ass off to get to a point where they can sustain their fixed costs from the variable costs of their user base.
Sometimes the generating revenue part itself is expensive to build, if you can't even get tons of people to use your product for free you're going to have trouble getting there (but that's a lot more for advertising-based revenue).
I think a lot fewer companies have no revenue stream that you're suggesting. Sometimes very early companies haven't figured out revenue, but they also haven't figured out product. Sometimes they're closely tied together, sometimes they're not.
Then they shouldn't be considered a business.
If you know how to turn $1 into $2 (of value) you should be spending as much money as you can.
I can easily turn $5 into $10; buy candy bars and sell them to my neighbors next time I watch a sports game in person.
So I'm really confident I could double $5. But could I double $50? I'll definitely get caught trying to sell $500 worth. So I just sell a little more all the time while remaining cash flow positive, and that's how I learn the limits of the market without going bust.
More recently it's monetizing the data that those users generate.
There is also value gaining a particular segment, such as Activison-Blizzard purchasing King gaining access to all the casual mobile gamers.
Essentially, its that those users could be used to generate money, and thus are valuable.
>Atlassian was founded in 2002, but it hasn't taken any outside investment. The last two funding rounds from Accel and T. Rowe Price were done to let employees sell some of their shares, and Atlassian says the cash wasn't used for operations.
Shares - 69,732,090
Percentage - 37.7%
Shares - 69,732,090
Percentage - 37.7%
Well done, gents. Well. Fucking. Done.
Atlassian may be the one of the only tech companies that actually deserves its valuation.
Well done, founders.
(The new valuation, according to the OP)
At $5.8B, the founders stake is $2.1 billion each, and the 1300 employees share $226 million.
It's good to be a founder!
So you get 1% of the company and it's last investment round was $10M - Boom you get a $100,000 tax bill that year! Even though it's all only paper value.
Then if you do liquidate you're taxed again on the gain!
It's a huge problem and there are a lot of folks in the startup community trying to get it rectified.
When the shareholder sells their shares they will be taxed.
I don't understand your scenario at all... :\
The shares won't be taxed until they are sold.
I know this, because I've worked in an Australian company and been given shares and they made no difference to my tax liability.
A nice payout for sure.
At any rate, this always bothers me because even though we do what we do because we love technology and helping people, and it's not all about making money, I believe that everyone should reap the rewards in a measure equal to their contribution. Very few people realize how much the cap table favor founders and investors. People happily say "I'm not here to get rich, but if this works then we'll all make money together." That's great, but the reality is that if it succeeds, still a handful of people will rise to become amongst the richest on the planet, while the rest get a very nice (sometimes awesome) payout, but still a tiny fraction of the first one or two. Employees: you were never in it together. You were working to mint a billionaire.
Atlassian is valued at A$8b, that is roughly $8m per employee.
Collecting only A$1.6m out of A$8m total value per employee isn't spectacular, but it isn't as bad as the nominal $200k payout makes it out to be. If you were working on a full time basis, you never had to fund the business on your credit card, and even if Atlassian went bankrupt the day before the IPO and plunged to $0 in value, you still got to keep A$1.4m of the A$1.6m.
You got to become a millionaire if you saved and invested well, while minting a billionaire. Sure, it's not a good a deal as being a founder of a IPO'ed billion dollar startup, it's not exactly a bad deal either.
Also, high salaries for founders is an issue only when the founders did not fund their own business.
You're right, in a startup, funded by VC, that pays the founders significantly more salary than their employees, is a lot less equitable compared to a bootstrapped startup funded by the founders' credit cards, or a VC funded startup that pays its founders little. In the latter cases, the founders take a lot more risk, and so their reward, should their startup succeed, would be a lot more "deserved".
Atlassian was founded in 2002, but it hasn't taken any outside
investment. The last two funding rounds from Accel and T. Rowe Price
were done to let employees sell some of their shares, and Atlassian
says the cash wasn't used for operations.
Pre-IPO discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10708908
- Either driven partly by what Slack is valued at (and then you add the other parts of Atlassian to get its total value)
- It really is this valuable, which would make Slacks billion-dollar + valuation a lot more legit than when people were nay-saying about it
- Just investors throwing money around because money is still 'cheap'
I still think that some savvy retail investors understand the tech market a lot more better now. This company is not burning through cash and shooting for super, super long-term growth (Twitter and it's ilk) so this feels more like a Microsoft listing than a Facebook listing.
Good on them for building something legit and something people would pay for (instead of advertising revenue).
- Atlassian has more than 10x the revenue of Slack
- JIRA and Confluence account for substantial amount of Atlassian's revenue. Two products that don't even compete with Slack.
I think Slack is a current silicon valley darling so people love to make this comparison but it doesn't directly compete with Atlassian's core business. It also has an order of magnitude less revenue.
I look at Slack as being more like a hybrid of the best parts of Box + Dropbox... They have the good parts of Box's business model and the UX quality of Dropbox. And fortunately for them, they aren't in a market where the price is driven largely by the cost of the commodity hardware underneath them.
One of the complications with trying to compete with disruption is that people inside your own company don't want to realize they are being disrupted. You see plenty of "the old plan is failing because we have not put enough time and energy into it".
Memorable tweets so far:
1) Founder of the company last night calling it quits and heading out for a beer. https://twitter.com/mcannonbrookes/status/674734326571921409...
2) Insanely clever marketing by the jira team: https://twitter.com/Atlassian/status/674964465717260288
Reply with your favourites! ;)
(Disclosure: am an Atlassian employee, though not in the photo or that team.)
Meanwhile, latest update reads: "New: Scumbagify support! Prefix any emoticon with (scumbag) to show how you really feel"
In some cases -- Bitbucket Cloud -- they really never do.
Whenever I think about Bitbucket, I think of https://bitbucket.org/site/master/issues/8548/better-ci-inte...
How do some of you track these things?
They're also used both in startups and in established firms, which makes me feel confident about their growth.
To me that seems like a sign they are ready for new competition, but I really wonder what the mindset is like internally once an org makes that kind of shift.
The company I work for has both JIRA and Confluence. It took a lot of work from several team members to get it to the current state where most people are happy about how it works, but the output is very highly valued by higher-ups.
It also has a growing ecosystem and good integration.
They've also made some underrated acquisitions, like the JITSI team (Blue Jimp), which recently made ENSO and is working on Hipchat
The customizations I've seen at rather big companies have required multiple devs, many months, and the end result has had some rough edges.
From what I've seen it is also non-trivial to scale their products to say orgs with 500+ active users, granted my experience here is a few years back.
That's the only reason to use Hipchat today, and the Slack experience is an order of magnitude better.
I think Slack put some pressure on the Hipchat team but there is plenty of stuff that is highly problematic for how Slack is set up at the moment. In particular even for small teams it can become incredibly hard to see what's happening and the integrations either spam too much or are too useless once it becomes a bit more crowded in a room.
When you go public, you have a legal obligation to your shareholders to make more money next quarter until the end of time. I'm questioning how big they can get with their current products... when they start trying to get into different industries that are already using Oracle, Salesforce, SAP, etc, how will they compete?
I don't see that there is a limit to how far they can grow. They are expanding their user base, they are constantly making or buying new products into their portfolio and they know how to sell and support it.
Jira's a workhorse, not a consumer device. If Atlassian went with "apple-like perceived simplicity" their product would probably be terrible for most of their users (enterprise customers) who want customizability and integrations over prescribed use cases.
On the other hand, I recall that everybody hated using JIRA. It was sooo slooow and so many little input boxes in the UI. Has it improved in the past 5 years?
Not enough, IMO. It still feels like something from 10 years ago. How do you even make something this slow these days?
Their strong points:
+ Solid super customizable issue tracking model that supports everything
Their weak points:
- UX (so much clutter by default)
- Performance (both client- and server-side - everything feels "heavy" now that we are used to facebook/google-style ajax apps that are "instant")
- Its design invites to what I like to call "bug tetris" - where people spend more time juggling/triaging/refining/classifying/validating/etc tasks than working on the product or whatever they are supposed to deliver.
None of it's good. Project management can't be put into a box easily, but it isn't Jira that made them rich, it's Jira + confluence + hipchat + integration for your org. When dumping jira means decoupling all that documentation and it's fancy links.. you keep paying the jira bill, and keep adding subscribers. They've essentially mastered vendor lock in for companies making software.
I have found three serious contenders when surveying this area recently:
1. Jira - flexible, but slow and old
2. TargetProcess - if you have bought into the Agile hype machine, this is for you
3. Asana - this one is a bit special. They have the performance and scalability, but it all just feels too brittle. The UX is fancy, minimalistic but not intuitive. It's like a collaborative scratch-pad for people who are really into tool ergonomics. I feel it goes too far in the other direction as compared to Jira.
Why can't someone just spend the 5 man-years required to build a Jira that's flexible, usable and fast?
He can now take out a loan against his shares for $300m if he wanted, which is something he probably couldn't do before, since the stock wasn't that liquid. And he might not have been interested in selling more.
Looks fine to me?
But regardless, those are 2 memorable ticker symbols.
Forgive me for the really elementary question, but how do I actually go about buying shares?
Personally, I use Charles Schwab, which is one of the largest US consumer brokerages and has a pretty good reputation. For beginners I usually recommend ShareBuilder (no, wait: recently renamed "Capital One Investing") as they have lots of features for beginners including purchase plans with little to no fees for small amounts and no maintainance fees. But (full disclosure) I may be a biased source: I work for Capital One.
Notably, Robinhood is a new startup that doesn't charge any fees and has nice mobile apps: https://robinhood.com/
Absolutely NOBODY does it this way.
The closest that exists is that a few companies (often utility companies) still have programs from many decades ago where they will sell stock directly to the public.
Finally, you could (theoretically) become a broker yourself and purchase stock directly on the exchanges.
Do I think Atlassian is worth $6bn? No. I planned to buy ~100k in stock at the open, saw the $27 open price, and cancelled my trade.
Is this a nice result for the founders? Yes. :)
Starting price on IPO day means little. It was flat the entire day. The way to judge these is in a couple of weeks (2-3 weeks) to see where the market really values it. See RACE for an example. That had a stronger IPO day "pop" and... here we are. :)
To be fair, it is Sydney ;)
It was actually much higher in the list, but the weak Australian dollar means that the US dollar stretches quite a bit further.
I seem to recall that cost of living in Sydney is also one of the highest in the world, but didn't find any sources on that.
Prague 4,569 per m^2
And now add earnings to that and Sydney is not that expensive. Pure price per m^2 says nothing, the important thing is how much m^2 I can buy with my average salary.
(source: home owner in Adelaide)