I'm kinda curious what their burn rate is. I think there are 20 odd employees now, not all of them engineers. That'll consume $2-3 million a year. One hopes they're simply stockpiling cash while valuations are good.
I'm kinda curious what valuation they got. I haven't seen anything about that anywhere.
http://vcr.vcexperts.com/vce/news/buzz/archive_view.asp?id=1...
Next to Facebook at $50bn that seems almost reasonable...
Joking aside it does seem on the high side but in it's favour it is a top 100 site by traffic, it has something resembling a basic revenue model in place, they have a plan for growth which they seem to be executing on reasonably and they are in a space which is under going growth and which clearly has some potential.
Yes right now Stack Overflow eclipses the other sites but having one massively successful site to fall back on and that they've learned things from is actually a pretty major asset.
I'm enjoying using it, and I would hate to see it fall over due to overexpansion/lack of cash flow.
The burn rate is very low.
The valuation is private.
The linked comment is dismissive and, in hindsight, ludicrous, saying that SO won't be around in a year (in 2008).
The only reasonable conclusion to reach from this is that your response is a not-so-subtle derision of my statement, basically claiming it is just as ludicrous. Or am I reading this wrong?
If not, this confuses me for several reasons:
1. It's very un-HN to be so snarky, even petty. You might be confusing HN for proggit?
2. I love SO, the (original) site. Not once have I ever questioned its viability or value;
3. I have however raised questions about the ability of SE sites to gain traction in their respective verticals, a position thus far backed up by your own numbers [1].
4. I actually wish you guys well. I'm a big fan. The snarky response to a dispassionate position/question makes me wonder if I've hit a nerve?
There are two kinds of comments you'll see on the Internet: uninformed hate/trolling like you linked to. You seem to be suggesting my comment falls into that. I disagree but hey, that's your prerogative. Whatever the case, there's no point in responding to those kinds of comments.
The second kind are neutral/positive, arguably informed and generally reasonable. My position is my comment falls into this category. When you respond to those with snarky comments, it actually does you a great disservice, portraying you as petty and small-minded (neither of which, for the record, I believe to be true).
Weird morning.
[1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/wp-content/uploads/FebMonthlyU...
I can't imagine how paying 20 people fulltime salaries is anything approaching "low" - as in under $1 or 2 million. Of course "low" is a relative term, so it all depends on what the number is you are comparing it against...
Expense != Burn Rate
A burn rate is just negative cash flow. It's just the negative value found on the end of your income statement.
You're only considering salary. They're also bringing in money from their careers offering and their ads. Also, Amazon links get auto-converted into an affiliate link. On a site that gets as many pageviews as they do, these would be not insubstantial revenues, which reduces their burn rate.