That theory is based on art springing up in locations where Massive Attack are playing. It's a bit odd because by that logic it could also be any of the dozens of people needed on tour.
We spent our first year as a startup hacking on laptops in the attic of Smithfields, along with a dozen other startups. No idea if Innovation Warehouse is still up there[1]. If you arrived at work early enough they'd still be hosing the blood off the tarmac from the early morning market.
Most startups moved out to WeWork as soon as they could turn a profit. But hey, it was cheap office space in super-central London.
I have many happy memories of weeks at Herrang. In fact I got offered my first job in open source there after a chance meeting, and my first startup can trace its origin to some conversations with other hackers in between dance classes.
Let's be clear - this affects client-side apps which include the template compiler (ie. the full vue.js bundle). Right? So apps built with Webpack, and using vue.runtime.min.js should be safe?
I'd imagine that represents the majority of Vue apps in production, but I might be wrong.
Virtualisaton is the basic task you're doing, you're making a "virtual" computer. The idea of the "cloud" is more that these virtual machines are hosted in a room somewhere far away with other virtual computers there as well.
For instance, I can install VMWare and get virtualisation going on my laptop, but I wouldn't consider that the cloud. Similar, you can get bare metal computers on the cloud which aren't virtualised.
Offtopic, but does anybody know how the diagrams in this article were generated? I'd love a simple piece of software to generate beautiful, straightforward pictures like this to explain architectural problems.
My feeling is that a simple revenue multiplier doesn't work as a seed stage business valuation.
For example, how does this work for pre-revenue SaaS startups valued $1M-$5M during seed? Even if they've started generating revenue, much of their value comes from the long-term network effects and potential to create a market (right?)
Seed stage businesses are sold based on the dream of growing into VC-backable rocket ships; these businesses are sold on being reliable cash machines. If you're growing at e.g. 20% month-over-month and have $25k MRR, you quite reasonably will get offered valuations in the high single-digit or low double-digit millions for the company. (When you attempt to sell 10~20% of it in a seed round.) The valuation methodology is, essentially, "whatever we can convince 1+ VCs to accept because they're scared that if they don't say yes a competitor will." It's far more sensitive to prevailing sentiment in the VC community and broader tech market than it is sensitive to the exact particulars of the business being partially sold.
If you're growing at 20% year-over-year, you're basically not investable. You're totally salable if the business generates a profit; if one were to throw out $100k per year for that profit (on an SDC basis as discussed in this post), expect the valuation to be $300k to $400k. This is much, much less sensitive to the current headlines on Wall Street.
There's a lot of daylight between $400k and $10 million, right? That's the premium the market places on growth. This is one of the reasons the G word comes up so much in pg's writing about startups. (See http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html among many other examples.)
Our data is related to outright sales of [generally] self-funded SaaS businesss.
It's not the same as the VC/angel world where they are investing in unprofitable or pre-revenue SaaS businesses based on potential or estimated future cashflows. The multiples we discuss will not apply in these situations and it's really not our area of expertise.
