科网已经泡沫？硅谷VC都不想错过好项目，都想在破灭前套现

科网已经泡沫？在线订餐网GrubHub和IMS Health上市分别融资1.9亿和13亿美元、拼车应用Lyft融资2.5亿美元、fb以20亿美元收购虚拟现实眼睛Oculus！硅谷VC crv.com合伙人说最近估值和IPO已泡沫，大家都不想错过好项目，都想在破灭前套现获利。微博 京东 阿里还不上市就赶不上这股浪潮了！

美国拼车应用Lyft 完成2.5亿美元融资，阿里巴巴、对冲基金Coatue Management和Third Point参与融资。Lyft成立于2007年，用户可以通过Lyft发出搭车请求，而另一名Lyft用户会很快抵达，将其送到目的地。

嘀嘀快的打车是学美国的Uber和Lyft砸钱补贴【拉新】，Lyft与Uber正在进行融资大战与烧钱比赛。Lyft的CEO 约翰·泽莫称说：“这是一项资本密集型业务。”南京一切都好吧？国内没泡沫吧？[偷笑]//@拒绝平庸PEVC:天使多久没来南京啦？[哈哈]//@物流冯老_OYM:有家上市2个月就申請破產//@我是永远的K:国内互联网泡沫怎样产生的?

唐: 对！国内骗子多，只有大佬们才可：风口的猪会飞！//@TECH2IPO: 国内没泡沫。今天刚跟几位资深创业经验的同事聊到这个事儿：很多地方“招商引资”，很多坏蛋过来坑蒙拐骗一圈，拿钱远走高飞，政府都找不到人影……哪儿有什么泡沫？吹都吹不起来啊……

微博下周要上市了！山寨万岁！山寨[赞] 泡沫[弱] //@高久恒：中国就是能山寨//@Goo99：泡沫不同时期的大小而已，前泡推后泡//@席新亮_javascript_html5：大环境问题//@滕堇伊Clover：其实是这样的，泡沫没有裂前都不叫泡沫[哈哈]//@我是永远的K：伟大的天朝！//@DeviL_GY：用面包屑吸引客户再用鸡腿留下来，是不错的做法。.....但是，用鸡腿吸引客户后期只给面包屑.......吃完鸡腿谁还鸟你啊
//@老牟的微博：高级黑啊！//@中国创造-龙脉战略创意：滴滴打车不应与出租运营商合作，而是应该与司机个人合作，想以此获得更高收入的司机完全可以以包月使用的方式来获得盈利。



美餐饮配送网GrubHub提升IPO股价为每股26美金
2014-04-04  来源: 网易财

美国最大的在线餐饮配送服务网站GrubHub公司，日前提升其发行价格到每股26美元，超过发行价格区间，使其首次公开招股融资金额将高达11.92亿美元。

该公司的主要经营网站包括Menupages.com和Seamless.com。而其股东将以每股26美元的价格出售所有的740万股票，根据Bloomberg汇编的数据显示。该公司此前已经以23美元到25美元每股的价格范围提供了700万股票。

GrubHub的盈利方式是当客户通过其网站订购外卖或点餐时向餐馆收取佣金。投资者纷纷押注这家总部位于芝加哥的公司，认为其可以继续扩大经营业务范围，超出目前涵盖从旧金山到伦敦等600个城市的28,800家餐厅范围，以获得更多的用户。 而它的伦敦同业者订餐网站Just Eat 4月3日在伦敦证券交易所挂牌交易，创造了近三年来最大的电子商务公司IPO纪录，共筹集6亿美元，今天Just Eat股价上涨9％，彭博社编纂的数据显示。

GrubHub的优势在于，它是Seamless North America LLC和GrubHub的结合体，前者业务成型，后者发展空间巨大，Seamless North America LLC于2012年从食品服务供应商爱玛客集团股份有限公司(Aramark Holdings Corp.)分拆出来，去年8月和GrubHub合并。快速评级国际公司(Rapid Ratings International Inc.) 的首席执行官詹姆斯•H•盖勒特介绍说(James H. Gellert)。

“这个合并使新成立的GrubHub具有良好的市场占有率和品牌知名度，”盖勒特，他的公司为民营企业在定价前做评估。“IPO投资者看重的因素一般是品牌知名度，市场领导地位和增长潜力。”

在2013年GrubHub平均每天处理的创收订单超过135,000单，其IPO文件显示。去年GrubHub营收增长67％至1.37亿美元。

其目前的IPO价格，GrubHub上市后的市值大约是20亿美元，几乎是其去年营收的15倍。

根据去年的数据，在美国上市的电子商务企业市值与收入的平均比值是2.5倍，而互联网服务公司超过6倍，根据彭博社编制的数据。GrubHub的竞争对手是传统餐厅，传统餐厅的市值非常低。彭博美国全方位服务的餐厅指数(Bloomberg U.S. Full-Service Restaurant Index)，其中包括Buffalo Wild Wings Inc.和达登餐馆公司(Darden Restaurants Inc.)，市值与收入的比值约1倍。

GrubHub由现任首席执行官马修•马洛尼(Matthew Maloney)创建于2004年。文件显示, 它的幕后支持者，包括频谱股权投资者(Spectrum Equity Investors LP)公司和华平投资有限责任公司(Warburg Pincus LLC)在内，也会在IPO中出售所持股份 。

花旗集团和摩根士丹利将负责GrubHub的首次公开招股。GrubHub将以代码GRUB 纽约证券交易所上市，并预计明天开始交易。GrubHub是2014年最新一家宣布上市的消费互联网企业， 其他有望在今年上市的企业还包括云存储服务提供商DropBox和企业云存储服务提供商Box。


美股评论：扎克伯格的人间正道
2014年04月01日 新浪财经

Facebook最新实时行情公司新闻公司研究机构持股财务信息媒体行业客户端
　　导读：MarketWatch专栏作家里弗斯(Jeff Reeves)认为，尽管Facebook(60.01, -0.96, -1.57%)收购Oculus的交易引来一片质疑，但是对于志在未来的科技巨头而言，这才是人间正道。扎克伯格在为公司的长期未来考虑，这其实是利好消息。

　　以下即里弗斯的评论文章全文：

　　是的，我确实觉得Facebook为Whatsapp拍出的190亿美元有出价过高的嫌疑，同理，他们最近收购Oculus VR花了20亿美元，也不能说没有类似的问题。

　　可是即便如此，甚至即便这些交易并没有达到预期的效果，我还是不同意许多人说扎克伯格(Mark Zuckerbeg)疯狂的批评。

　　如果你是Facebook(FB)这样一家公司的首席执行官，你就会明白，收购Oculus这样的交易，正是你不得不去做的。

　　要么做这样的交易，要么就冒慢慢死去的风险，二选一。

　　我们当然可以在道德的层面上去谈论这些问题，比如Oculus是被炒作成收购对象的，或者Facebook不甚合理的双重股权结构使得扎克伯格拥有了近乎独裁者的权力，可以任意做出他认为合适的决定。

　　我们也可以怀疑社交网络巨头根本不可能有效地将Whatsapp的4.5亿用户转化为营收来源，或者是Oculus永远都不能赚钱。

　　可是在我看来，问题的关键在于，一家科技公司如果想一直占据顶峰，就必须进行大胆的交易，必须比别人看得都更加长远。

　　因此，尽管只有时间才能告诉我们Facebook的决定是对是错，但是投资者显然是没有理由对扎克伯格和他的策略指手画脚的。

　　那些出色的交易

　　撇撇嘴，说Oculus交易根本没意义，这是谁都会做的事情。上周，Facebook的股价下跌了大约10%，显然，很大程度上就是因为市场不买这笔交易的账。

　　更不用说，当我们看到人们使用这种奇怪的虚拟现实眼镜的照片，不禁莞尔也是再正常不过的反应。

　　不过整体而言，当扎克伯格的大脑思维超越了目前的Facebook平台，指向他认为的市场未来发展方向，我想，这才是他的大脑履行了正常的职责。

　　在将来，对于我们的工作而言，虚拟现实会与GoToMeeting电话会议一样有用吗？在将来，我们的孩子们和奶奶们通过虚拟现实设备聊天，感觉是不是肯定要好过Skype上的普通聊天？

　　我无法确切回答，任何人都无法确切回答。不过，既然谁也不能准确预知科学技术未来的发展方向，一家科技公司所能够做的最好决定，就是依据直觉行事。

　　有些时候，这样的决定会带来非常丰硕的成果。

　　比如2005年，谷歌[微博](1120.15, 5.87, 0.53%)(GOOG)收购了一家鲜为人知的小科技公司，花了估计大约5000万美元。一段时间内，这交易始终不开花不结果，但是到了2007年，第一代iPhone抢滩市场后，交易的价值凸现出来了——他们收购的那家公司叫做安卓。

　　现在距离最初的交易时间已经接近十年了。我们可以说，当初哪怕最乐观的谷歌工程师，也不敢想象智能手机在今日的世界上会如此普及——而且，每五部智能手机当中，就有四部使用着安卓系统。

　　如果你对安卓系统不感冒，那我们再说说另外一笔交易，2006年谷歌花了16亿美元收购一家只有一年历史，当时本质上是零营收的公司YouTube。尽管目前没有具体的数据，但是一家机构日前评估过，谷歌的视频部门2013财年为公司贡献了大约56亿美元广告营收，超过谷歌帝国506亿美元总广告营收的10%。

　　甚至，哪怕从不以“性感”迷人的微软[微博](40.3, 0.94, 2.39%)(MSFT)，在互联网高潮时代也做出过一些动作。2000年，他们花据说是2000万美元到4000万美元收购了一家视频游戏公司Bungie Software。那时Xbox还没有面世，市场上流行的只有收购对象的Halo。

　　过去大约十年当中，视频游戏系列产品卖出了成万上亿，也为微软带来了大量的真金白银，而且更有战略意义的是，这也让微软获得了传统的个人电脑软件之外又一个可靠的营收持续来源。

　　心多大未来多大

　　如果你是一家科技公司，你想做的不正是这样的交易吗？遗憾的是，你能够做成的机会是有限的。

　　2013年度，Facebook的运营现金流为42亿美元，而同时他们还有115亿美元的现金储备，这就使得他们拥有了在未来几年挥洒梦想的机会——那，为什么不想得更远大一些？

　　Oculus本质上说来和Facebook的现有业务并不兼容。

　　不过，这都不重要。

　　其实，对于一家科技公司而言，最糟糕的就是花费大量金钱在自己的业务周围建起高高的围墙……然后坐视自己的业务一点点枯萎下去。

　　2002年，惠普[微博](32.04, 0.11, 0.34%)(HPQ)斥资250亿美元收购了个人电脑公司康柏。收购的意图是强化自己现有的个人电脑业务，挑战戴尔[微博]，但这同时也消耗了本来可以投入高度有利可图的服务器和储存业务的资源。

　　在还没有智能手机，甚至笔记本都不那么普及的年代，华尔街的分析师们就开始抱怨，说惠普的这一决定让自己的业务面变得狭窄了。现在，甚至有意见认为惠普应该将个人电脑业务拆分出去，无疑也从另外一个角度证明了当初批评意见的正确。

　　或许还有一种行为比深沟高垒更糟糕，那就是处于绝望中的企业胡乱抓救命稻草。

　　还是拿惠普举例子吧，比如他们2010年12亿美元收购Palm的交易。后个人电脑时代的压力巨大，公司觉得自己必须要做点什么了。

　　可是，最后的事实却证明，如果没做好，还真的不如什么都不做。到2011年年底，惠普自己杀死了WebOS，并且进行了和交易总成本大致相当的减记。

　　Oculus既不是那种可以帮助Facebook建起围墙的“安全”选择，也不是他们出于实际需要收购的。这笔交易就是出于直觉，出于强烈的意愿，最糟糕不过是事与愿违，而成本，Facebook完全承担得起。

http://d4.sina.com.cn/pfpghc/70ec8ed85f1d4b7a9e1b0029116fc82f.png
　　短期内，投资者肯定会不开心，因为一切都没有担保。可是，扎克伯格显然是在努力思考下一个十年，而不是下一个财季，对于公司的长期前景而言，这当然是件好事。

　　不久前，《华尔街日报》有一篇重头报道，题为《现金与偏执推动科技巨头并购狂热》。对于他们的这种想法，我在情绪的层面完全理解，但是我们同样该看到一些交易背后的抱负，以及对将来可能落伍的恐惧。

　　说回到Facebook，扎克伯格的抱负就是要给全世界人使用互联网沟通的进程打上自己的烙印。这家意味着，他必须花钱去收购那些尚在幼年的企业和理念，哪怕短期不会有利润，但却得到了为未来构筑平台的梦想和可能性。

　　当然，我并不是说Oculus就一定会成为Facebook撬起地球的支点。可是，如果你想在未来的岁月当中依旧保持科技行业的霸主地位，就必须学会像Facebook这样行事，而不是坐拥海量现金，只依靠内部的人才创新和进行供应链收购——是的，你懂的，我说的就是苹果(536.86, -0.60, -0.11%)(AAPL)。


GrubHub IPO Raises $192.5 Million
Thursday, Apr 3, 2014  By Associated Press


Investors seem ready to eat up GrubHub.
The Chicago-based online food delivery company has raised $192.5 million in its initial public offering, more than it expected.
GrubHub priced 7.4 million shares at $26 each, up from its expected sale of 7 million shares for $23 to $25 each. That was already an increase from its projections in March and February. And the banks managing the deal could still buy another 1.1 million shares, further boosting proceeds.
GrubHub also owns the Seamless food ordering website. The company connects nearly 29,000 restaurants with users in more than 600 U.S. cities. At the end of 2013, about 3.4 million people had placed an order through GrubHub websites in the past year.
Shares are to begin trading Friday.


Company That Knows What Drugs Everyone Takes Going Public
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adam ... takes-going-public/
1/06/2014



Nearly every time you fill out a prescription, your pharmacy sells details of the transaction to outside companies which compile and analyze the information to resell to others. The data includes age and gender of the patient, the name, address and contact details of their doctor, and details about the prescription.

A 60-year-old company little known by the public, IMS Health, is leading the way in gathering this data. They say they have assembled “85% of the world’s prescriptions by sales revenue and approximately 400 million comprehensive, longitudinal, anonymous patient records.”

IMS Health sells data and reports to all the top 100 worldwide global pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as consulting firms, advertising agencies, government bodies and financial firms. In a January 2nd filing to the Security and Exchange Commission announcing an upcoming IPO, IMS said it processes data from more 45 billion healthcare transactions annually (more than six for each human on earth on average) and collects information from more than 780,000 different streams of data worldwide.

Although consumers are not informed about such transactions, they have taken place for years. “The selling of prescription data really began in earnest in the late 1980s,” said Per Lofberg, executive vice president of CVS Caremark Corporation, the nation’s largest pharmacy. “There was some controversy around that. It wasn’t so much for the patient privacy, because none of this has any patient identifiers, but it was controversial in relation to physician privacy.”

Pharmaceutical companies want to know what doctors are prescribing what medications. If Pfizer PFE +0.34% knows that a doctor is prescribing Cialis made by rival firm Eli Lilly, they might have a sales rep make the case for Viagra instead. “That allows pharmaceutical manufacturers basically  to profile individual doctors in terms of what they are prescribing, what their practice looks like, whether they are using drug A or drug B,” Lofberg said.

Privacy experts have expressed concern that even anonymized health records, pieced with other information, could identify individuals. This issue is one that IMS singled out in its filing as one of the risk factors to its business.

“There is ongoing concern from privacy advocates, regulators and others regarding data protection and privacy issues,” the company said. “Also, there are ongoing public policy discussions regarding whether the standards for de-identified, anonymous or pseudonomized health information are sufficient, and the risk of re-identification sufficiently small, to adequately protect patient privacy.”

IMS says the backbone of their information processing of the 45 billion records annually takes place in Carlstadt, New Jersey. They also have teams of 1,200 India, 500 in the Philippines, 200 in China and 200 in Spain, the filing said.

Could clever outside data scientists actually unmask people’s identities through their anonymized prescription records?

“It could be done. Are there pretty serious penalties for trying to do that and then doing something with it? Yes,” says Bob Merold, a health care industries consultant who worked as an executive for IMS for nine years. “Obviously, if somebody wants to do it, they can and then they worry about the consequences. But the general feeling is that the benefits from having this stuff, particularly in terms of controlling the health care system and spending, is so much greater that we have to live with the risks and be vigilant on the enforcement.”

Deborah Peel, a Freudian psychoanalyst who founded Patient Privacy Rights in Austin, Texas, has long been concerned about corporate gathering of medical records.

“I’ve spent 35 years or more listening to how people have been harmed because their records went somewhere they didn’t expect,” she says. “It got to employers who either fired them or demoted them or used the information to destroy their reputation.”

“It’s just not right. I saw massive discrimination in the paper age. Exponential isn’t even a big enough word for how far and how much the data is going to be used in the information age,” she continued. “If personal health data ‘belongs’ to anyone, surely it belongs to the individual, not to any corporation that handles, stores, or transmits that information.”

Companies dealing in health data must follow the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which sets out privacy standards on who can use and disclose personal health data. “For decades, our market research business was built using health information that did not identify a patient—long before the passage of HIPAA or other privacy laws,” IMS said in its SEC filing. “We continue to engage in strong privacy and security practices in the collection, processing, analysis, reporting and use of information.”


Testing UberX, Lyft and Sidecar Against a Cab in Six Cities
Six teams in six cities took to the streets to put ride-sharing apps to the test
March 12, 2014 WSJ



Sometimes, it's OK to get in a stranger's car.

Using apps, tens of thousands of people every day pay for rides in other people's cars instead of taking cabs. Drivers from services called Uber, Lyft and Sidecar are taking part in one of the most unusual new kinds of businesses enabled by smartphones.

The first time I e-hailed a stranger for a ride in San Francisco a year and a half ago, it felt like the kind of thing I shouldn't tell my mother. Who is this man with a Prius, I could hear her asking, and how do you know he isn't a maniac? When I climbed in the car, he offered me a lollipop. Now I'm taking candy from strangers, too?

Let me explain, Mom: Riding with strangers, aka ride-sharing, has become a regular part of how I get around because it's convenient and often cheaper than a cab.


There are still safety concerns regarding the drivers—not that they're serial killers, but they might lack comprehensive insurance coverage. But you could argue that these services, which use smartphones and GPS data, are potentially even safer to use than regular cabs.

What's certain is that all three services are spreading fast, available in many U.S. cities, from Chicago to Charlotte, N.C. UberX, the largest nonprofessional driver service run by Uber, is in 25 U.S. markets.

Like any form of transportation, you need to be smart about using these apps.

To put them to the test, I mustered Journal colleagues in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Washington and New York. I took each service to work for a week in San Francisco, and in each city, testers embarked on a mini "Amazing Race," starting the same peak-traffic trip at the same time, headed to the same destination. In most cases, three people used three apps while a fourth hailed a local taxi to compare. (Lyft and Sidecar aren't available in New York.)

Over more than 30 rides, we had drivers offer us candy, fist bumps, and even meditation coaching. They all got us where we needed to go safely, and almost as quick as a taxi, but not always as cheap.

Some rides were three or even four times as expensive as a cab, because some services raise prices during rush hour. On average, our rides on UberX cost about 20% more than taxi fare. Lyft came in second according to price, costing just a bit more than a taxi, not including tips.


The one app that stood out as a winner is Sidecar. Not only did it cost, on average, about 10% less than the taxi, but it gave us more of a feeling of control. That's because Sidecar turned its ride-placing software into a marketplace in February. Drivers name their price and riders choose who will pick them up.

As kooky as they sound at first, these apps do simplify the process of getting a ride. Rather than hailing a cab or calling a taxi dispatcher, you launch an app. Your phone tells the service where you are and shows you the nearest potential rides on a map with little car icons crawling around the screen like gerbils.

As your ride comes to pick you up, you can watch its avatar scamper across the map—offering a level of assurance and ETA I've never had from traditional taxi companies. With all the services, you use a credit card through the app—no swiping or fumbling for cash.

Lyft and Uber ping nearby drivers and tell you which one will show up. The apps don't automatically calculate your fare, but they warn you if they're going to charge rush-hour rates, called "surge" pricing by Uber and "prime-time" pricing by Lyft.


During my San Francisco morning tests, UberX often wanted to double the price, while Lyft wanted to tack on 25%. In Manhattan, UberX once quadrupled the charge.

At non-rush-hour times, both companies' rates were cheaper than a cab, and UberX—which doesn't allow tipping—was usually the cheapest. An Uber spokesman said the percentage of trips that charge surge pricing is "in the single digits." Last week, Uber updated its app to notify users with an alert if surge pricing ends within 30 minutes of looking for a ride, in case they want to wait it out.

Sidecar doesn't do surge pricing. It asks for your destination so drivers can say how much they'd charge to take you. The app displays bids with estimated time until pickup. Sidecar drivers seem less inclined to jack up prices, especially if they know other drivers might win your business.

Sidecar's marketplace works best where there are lots of drivers, such as San Francisco, where Sidecar is based. That's a problem in other cities, where we had to wait longer to get the best deals. During a sunny lunchtime in Boston, one colleague waited 23 minutes for a Sidecar; another in Washington waited 30 minutes. With Uber, waits never exceeded 13 minutes. (Uber, Lyft and Sidecar keep their driver counts secret.)

So how was the ride? Taxis, on average, got us to our destinations via the shortest, quickest routes, but UberX drivers weren't far behind. Sidecar and Lyft drivers on average took about 20% longer.

Many of these nonprofessionals went out of their way to provide good service because they knew we'd be rating them. Most apps let you, say, cancel a pickup from a poorly rated driver. (I'd avoid any driver with less than 4.6 stars out of five, given Internet "inflation.") Since Sidecar lets you choose a driver yourself, you can select not just by price but by rating.

If you're going to try this, remember ride-sharing services each have their own style. UberX drivers act more like chauffeurs, with passengers in the back. Sidecar and Lyft invite riders to sit up front. Lyft even asks drivers to affix pink mustaches to the fronts of their cars, and to give riders fist-bumps when they hop in.

My colleague Erich in Los Angeles had a Lyft driver who said he was a meditation coach and asked Erich to choose a card from a deck that would help reveal his inner desires. Erich chose "serenity" and the driver told him to watch for Saturn to enter his orbit. "I think because of my ethos, I get great reviews," he told Erich.

Indeed, Erich gave him five stars—for a safe and courteous ride, with a side of serenity.

都是高大上啊。