Hahaha. That's your argument? "They're in many places and you wouldn't understand why they're so valuable if you have a <scoff> 'lifestyle' business".
How about dishing concrete examples of all these places they're in that's going to make them as astonishingly profitable as they need to be to justify a $2.5B valuation?
How about not assuming a company that just IPOed is at the end of its road but instead will continue innovating and finding new revenue streams? They did just raise $200MM after all.
I actually think Pandora is going to turn out to be a nice, profitable business. But the valuation they're getting in the market is not that of a "nice, profitable business". It's one of a MASSIVELY profitable business throwing off hundreds of millions in profits. So far they haven't thrown off anything.
I'd be more impressed if they could support themselves after 7 years and didn't need investments and an IPO to stay afloat.
Actually they've been previously profitable but keep putting money into expanding the business.
Hahaha. That's your argument?
Yes, my snarky friend, that's my argument. Given your years of experience running startups from conception to IPO/buyout, I'm sure you can understand.
BTW I don't scoff at all at lifestyle businesses, if you're lucky enough to pull one off. But they're a different beast, and expertise in one area does not automatically translate to expertise in another.
So to restate your argument, Pandora is a company capable of carrying out an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody knows what it is.
Does that sound fair?
Remember, there's a big difference between a lifestyle business and a startup. A startup knows how to grow and do so creatively. A lifestyle business has no such inclination, and those involved with such efforts tend to think about other businesses in a narrow manner.