Comparing the IPO market today to the IPO market in the late 90s is not very instructive. You could have IPO'd a lemonade stand in 1998 and raised $10 million.
I'm using that only for AMZN because they seem to have made a choice to not turn a profit and instead to expand their business. The other companies I mentioned were directly profitable by this point in their respective revolutions, except for Amazon, where I'm using the IPO as proof that they had a sustainable business, even if it wasn't precisely profitable- they were generating enough cash to be profitable, they just chose to reinvest it into the business. I don't see any evidence that any of the major Generative AI companies are in that position or the position that Apple, Netscape, Motorola etc. were in.
And that's the weird one, all of the other examples I provided were booking real profits by this point in their technology cycle.
I'm using that only for AMZN because they seem to have made a choice to not turn a profit and instead to expand their business. The other companies I mentioned were directly profitable by this point in their respective revolutions, except for Amazon, where I'm using the IPO as proof that they had a sustainable business, even if it wasn't precisely profitable- they were generating enough cash to be profitable, they just chose to reinvest it into the business. I don't see any evidence that any of the major Generative AI companies are in that position or the position that Apple, Netscape, Motorola etc. were in.
And that's the weird one, all of the other examples I provided were booking real profits by this point in their technology cycle.