>> They’re worth something relative to the revenues they’ve been able to generate
The days of "weird" values aren't over.
The new $trillion companies are worth a trillion because they achieved a lock of one sort or another on a market.... ideally a literal market, a platform or an exclusive data source.
That's basically the idea behind most of these valuations, from FB's "outrageous" IPO price to WeWork's shenanigans. Get a "monopoly^" or strengthen an eventual buyer's monopoly.
With Youtube, google was buying dominance in online video, with a lock on creators. With Android, they bought a running start to mobile dominance... market locks.
Magic Leap's problem is not revenue, it's strategic value.
When FB bought oculus for or $2bn They got to be a major competitor in the market immediately.... the assumption being that one or two of the early products will become the dominant platform.
What do you get if you buy magic leap? How do you get from here to a product that dominates its market?
VR is still not an important market, but it is interesting. Companies will buy into it, but they need to be buying into it. Magic Leap isn't really in the market, nevermind dominant.
The technology itself doesn't matter.
^ In the Thiel sense.