revenues

As expected this is going to have a negative affect on ad revenues but what people forget is that publishers won't just accept lower revenues.

Any attempt to use revenues as justification of the valuation is missing the point, also comments regarding git hosting being a commodity misses it.

This has lead people to claim that SC2 earnings are probably understated, because their sponsorship revenues aren't public.

There's no clear sign of how they'll increase revenues to justify their cost of generating that revenue.

It's not enough to give us a direct stake in the revenues of a project, though almost nobody does.

Instead, increased revenues, such as provided by Reagan's tax rate cuts, allows higher leverage AKA deficits.

Get enough smartphones into the hands of users and Google will see their revenues increase from the increased viewing of ads.

Addendum: It turns out the worldwide music industry revenues actually haven't fallen since 2000.

Uber's revenues in San Francisco, meanwhile, are running at $500 million per year.

Can you provide evidence that Reagan's tax rate cuts actually improved revenues?

They are still very much an advertising company dependent on search revenues.

> Since [...] 2000, global recorded music revenues have fallen from $21 billion to $7 billion per year.

"Private valuations aren't based on current revenues, they're betting on future revenues." Private valuations aren't unique in this aspect.

And "users" is the wrong metric as big companies probably make up 90% of revenues, and most of that is not even visible in the public repos.

Example of one of the arguments: "They have supported the propagation of the misguided view that tax cuts are good for stimulating growth and even increasing government tax revenues.

And given the amount of real profits and revenues in the category of "technology," my contention is that there won't be, as Marc Andreessen puts it, an "earth-shattering kaboom."