I completely agree; I think a lot of startups these days are built on the same principles. Uber comes to mind, specifically. I think the name of the game there is to get to an exit before the regulators really start to get involved, because those will only eat away cash/value. The same applies to AirBnB (again, only in my opinion). So in general, these types of startups are really just sprinting to an exit, growing insanely fast to benefit the early people: founders and investors. Once it's public, they've cashed in their stock, so it's up to the new guard to figure out how to turn the growth company into a successful, long-term company.

> I think the name of the game there is to get to an exit before the regulators really start to get involved, because those will only eat away cash/value.

Ostensibly, the multi-decade vision for Uber is that it becomes not just a taxi substitute but the operator of all the transportation in the future, as people abandon cars in the US and as motorized transportation reaches more of the third world, eventually culminating with them having a good chunk of the ownership in the driverless-car market... and that's where the value will come from, not just the disruption of the entrenched taxi interests (which is only adequately lucrative, and, as you mentioned, riskier). And regulatory diversity at least ensures that there will be somewhere that they should be capable of proving out a model with which to tempt the rest of the world.

Realistic or not, I tend to think that the management buys into that kool-aid.

Uber I can see working in the long run. For taxis, they are disrupting artificial monopolies that have been created by cities.

Airbnb, that one is a bit murkier. There is something to be said for people wanting better value for money, and being able to rent a nice apt for the price of a small hotel room surely is a good thing. Even if you would add some sort of hotel tax to that, I'd say it's still superior value to a traditional hotel.

That really depends on your definition of success. Is it going to build a lasting sustainable corporation that will benefit humanity through long term research and development? Unlikely. Did it do well for its employees and initial investors? A very emphatic yes. In a world where we accept limited purpose prototypes and one-off solutions to get things done in the software and process worlds, why can't we we accept it from a business?

> Funny how every single 'right' thing they did benefits the early owners only and no one who buys the company stock thereafter.

Hypothetically, there's not really any reason to put scare quotes around the word right: At its core, every company is a vehicle for delivering value to its current owners. Future owners are not current owners, and the only defense mechanism they have is good old-fashioned caveat emptor.

In a well-functioning system, that would be sufficient: Few companies would follow the "pump and dump" scheme because it would be so difficult to pull one over on prudent, skeptical investors that approach would rarely meet success. I think, though, that we are not seeing a well-functioning system. We're finding a system where companies inevitably flow toward less and less savvy investors, until eventually you've got half your family members talking about how they're thinking about getting in on the Facebook IPO based on nothing more than that they keep hearing in the news that it's selling for a lot of money.

Incidentially, I was terminally amused by all the news articles talking about the "failure" of the Facebook IPO. On the contrary, if I were one of Facebook's pre-IPO owners I think I'd have been laughing all the way to the bank. Only in what passes for popular financial news could someone do the equivalent of characterizing a masterfully executed Poker bluff as a woeful failure without being rightfully dismissed as someone who's terminally clueless about the rules of the game.