Will a Tighter Economy Rein In Startups? 109
Nerval's Lobster writes: It's been quite a ride for the stock market this week. In China, markets cratered; in the U.S., stocks dove for two days, only to rebound on Wednesday. That made many tech firms nervous, both about the Chinese economy (which some of them depend upon) and the continuing flow of money from VCs and investors. While the economic jitters don't seem to be affecting some tech firms' ability to implode themselves, more than one pundit is wondering whether the tech industry will shift into 'fear mode,' which could be bad for the so-called 'unicorns' that need funders to keep partying like it's 1999. Are we going to see money start drying up for startups?
Not once QE4 starts (Score:2)
Once the firehose is turned on Wall St will be swimming in cash. Main Street not so much.
not like 2001 (Score:2)
Re:not like 2001 (Score:5, Insightful)
That IS like 2001 - the focus on revenue, not profit. I don't know of a single unicorn ($1 billion+ valuation, pre-IPO stage) who's making profit right now. Turn off the flow of VC funds and they close - they cannot continue operations.
Back in the dot-bomb days it was the same thing. It was all about growing big, growing fast, and even if you lost money on every customer/user, you'd "make it up in volume". At the end of that era, most of the companies who had big revenues and negative cash flow either folded or scaled back so far they were sold for literally a penny on the dollar and faded away to obscurity. We'll see the same thing with the current crop of unicorns when the market crashes again. Those who can sustain themselves on existing revenues will survive. The rest will either go away completely, or end up being gobbled up by others for a fraction of their "value".
Re: (Score:1)
I think the big difference is that there was a big rush to get on the web during the dot-com boom, and the established players actually didn't care AT ALL about revenue (as the old joke went). They just wanted presence of some sort. The problem was, no one really knew what you could actually do with the internet. Everyone just knew that it was important to get on board fast, and a gazillion e-prospectors showed up with all sorts of pie-in-the-cloud ideas that simply weren't sustainable.
Nowadays, the mark
Re: (Score:2)
Remember a company called Loudeye? At one time (1999 to 2002) they were the LARGEST digital media company in the world. More music, more images than anyone else. Sure, they lost money on every stream they served, but they were HUGE, and were growing at record rates (like 2500% annual growth). At IPO (early 2000 IIRC) they were valued at $1.5 billion, making them one of the biggest "Internet companies" out there. By 2006, Nokia bought the whole thing for $60 million (about three pennies on the dollar, r
It won't matter (Score:5, Interesting)
We've reached a very perverse point in our history where what's bad for Wall Street is good for America, and what's bad for America is good for Wall Street.
In other words, the fed needs to raise interest rates. It would help everyone but Wall Street.
Re: It won't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually no. That's the problem. The rich do not spend their money. Money being spent makes the economy go. That is why giving economic stimulus to less well of people helps the economy--they spend it. The rich do exactly the economic equivalent of keeping it in a mattress. Sure some don't but most do.
Therefore economic stimulus that benefits the stock market has only a very marginal effect on the real world economy most people live in. Of course conservative leaders know this, which is why that's their favorite kind of stimulus.
So no, you're wrong. Rich people are bad for poor people. What's good for Wall Street was only coincidentally good for Main Street back in the days when we didn't have insane trade policies, when we had effective tariffs, and a government that actually didn't wage economic war on workers all the time.
A prosperous economy is always good for Wall Street and everyone else, but what's going in now is theft from everyone who's not rich in favor of those who are, and this is not a prosperous economy.
On the bright side, if VC funding dries up for silicon valley we can finally stop having to put up with idiotic startups, 20 something "CEOs", and their latest smartphone app that's going to change the world that nobody gives a crap about.
Re: It won't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Like the saying goes, "Rich people didn't get rich by spending their money." Anyone who's worked in some sort of service-industry capacity (hotel workers, bank cashiers, restaurant servers) will tell you that the cheapest, most over-entitled, spoiled brat customers are the rich. I probably tip better than most billionaires. The rich want everything for free and will pitch holy hell if you don't give it to them. They think that just because they have a lot of money that the rules don't apply to them.. and the sad thing is, they're right.
Re: (Score:1)
PSST - if you're a rich person you don't give money to poor people. In fact, that's what they all say is what KEEPS them rich. You stuff it in mattresses called "expensive cars", "expensive watches", "Fine Art", "Mansions" and stuff like that. Stuff that either got manufactured (and paid for) years ago or requires relatively few people to produce (and can be maintained by underpriced illegal immigrants).
We spent 30 years or more trying to prove that wealth trickles down by giving incentives to the people o
Re: (Score:2)
"You don't earn interest on money if you keep it stuffed in your mattress."
Of course I do, I just stick an extra 10 bucks under my mattress every few months. Problem solved...
The actual finance guys I know want interest up (Score:4, Interesting)
The actual finance guys I know want interest up.
The day traders I know are afraid it's going to kill their ability to make money.
The high frequency traders I know don't care, since they are still able to game the system.
Re: (Score:2)
Up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A.
Re: (Score:2)
The day traders I know are afraid it's going to kill their ability to make money.
Day traders don't care.....if the market is up, they go long, if the market is down, they go short. What they want is volatility, long, predictable swings where they can jump in and jump out.
Re: (Score:3)
The day traders I know are afraid it's going to kill their ability to make money.
Day traders don't care.....if the market is up, they go long, if the market is down, they go short. What they want is volatility, long, predictable swings where they can jump in and jump out.
Money being sucked out of the stock market into the bond market reduces stock liquidity, which in turn, reduces stock volatility. Day traders rely on more or less large swings in stock prices, and when major holdings are not in play (because there are none, if all the institutional investors have fled to bonds), then their ability to profit evaporates.
Day trading is generally based on options with a limit order (to reduce downside risk, since they can't use the Black-Scholes or Black-Scholes-Merton hedging
Re: (Score:2)
Day traders don't care
Day traders don't know
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Same bullshit that went on at the beginning of George Dubyah's first term right before 9-11. He hired a bunch of people to fuck with energy prices by inducing a fake oil shortage and "rolling blackouts" to artificially raise the prices of energy. They got caught red-handed doing it.. Read about a company called Enron.
Enron was playing those games before Bush became a factor. Failure was baked into the spot market on electricity years before. And Governor Davis was the primary political factor keeping the mess from being resolved.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would it be good for the common man? Seriously, why? Right now I can get a cheap home loan. A cheap car loan. As long as inflation remains relatively low, it's in the interest of the common man for the interest rate to stay right as close to zero as possible.
Indirectly, low interest rates helps provide jobs, which is also good for the common man.
Re: (Score:3)
Because when you create money out of nothing and give it to banks for free they get to use the money first which steals real wealth from everyone else. House prices are based on interest rates. Right now home ownership is very low and yet home prices are rising.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A decrease in home prices would put people underwater on their mortgages ...
Unless you like long winding deflationary spirals you'd have to offset any rate raise with stimulus, and that would make the deficits skyrocket.
Re: (Score:2)
A decrease in home prices would put people underwater on their mortgages ...
Lots of people already are. But high home prices are keeping people homeless while we have multiple vacant homes for every homeless person (not family but person) in America. This situation cannot stand.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would it be good for the common man? Seriously, why? Right now I can get a cheap home loan. A cheap car loan. As long as inflation remains relatively low, it's in the interest of the common man for the interest rate to stay right as close to zero as possible.
Indirectly, low interest rates helps provide jobs, which is also good for the common man.
You might be able to get a cheap home loan, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you can get a cheap home. Lower interest means people can afford more house for the same payment, so home prices rise since people can bid more for houses.
Re: (Score:2)
Lower interest rates do not make a home cheaper. Its basically offset by a rise in the house price. The monthly payment affordability of someone doesn't change with rates or house prices. All that happens is what percent of that payment goes to interest and what to the loan. Lower interest rates, higher house price. Sure you can "afford" a more expensive home, but with all prices going up, you basically end up with the same "value". So if the rates today all of a sudden jumped to 7%, you can bet the h
Re: (Score:2)
The same point is made over and over...and no, not really. People don't spend every last dollar they own on a home.
And if they do, and interest rates/mortgage rates go lower...great! They can re-finance their home, and save lots of money!
Re: (Score:1)
But wouldn't higher interest rates encourage the common man to save for rather than borrow against his future?
Re: (Score:2)
True, higher interest rates means your checking account gives back a higher percentage, but the barrier to owning stocks and bonds is so low nowadays, who cares?
Re: (Score:1)
True, higher interest rates means your checking account gives back a higher percentage, but the barrier to owning stocks and bonds is so low nowadays, who cares?
That's my very point! Current interest rates make the payoff for savings so low that discourages people from being responsible and encourages them to become indebted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The Fed shouldn't exist and print and manipulate in the first place but it does. The economy needs market rates. Given the amount of debt and lack of production/productivity, the rates need to shoot up into high double digits. The Fed will not do that, since even low single digits will complete the economic collapse that was not allowed to run its course by the Fed so many times. From Greenspan, to Bernanke, to the current incarnation, they want to prop upnthe fake economy - stock and bond and housing an
Will a tighter economy rein in clickbait? (Score:3, Funny)
It's been quite a ride for the clickbait headline writing market this week. In China, headlines cratered; in the U.S., clickbait dove for two days, only to rebound on Wednesday. That made many Slashdot editors nervous, both about the front page of Slashdot (which some of them depend upon) and the continuing flow of money from VCs and investors. While the clickbait jitters don't seem to be affecting some news firms' ability to implode themselves, more than one pundit is wondering whether the clickbait industry will shift into 'fear mode,' which could be bad for the so-called 'ad firms' that need readers to keep clicking like it's 1999. Are we going to see money start drying up for clickbait headlines?
At least Nerval's Lobster is trying harder. A story with two non-Dice sources as opposed to zero is always an improvement.
Probably will just make our jobs harder (Score:4, Insightful)
As someone that worked in the tech industry during the recessions in 1973, 1980, 1990, 2001, and 2007, unemployment for people with good tech skills was almost nonexistent during most of those bad times, but it meant you couldn't afford to hire more people. That made things much harder for the people with jobs. I've noticed that during each recession, the number of hours expected has gone up each time. I worked for a loan mortgage start-up from 2006 until 2009, and the expected hours increased from about sixty to nearly a hundred. We were expected to do 16 hours Mon-Thu then 12 on Fri-Sun. At my current startup, the hours aren't that bad yet, but I see it coming. We had more open dev positions than devs! That was until a couple of weeks ago when our largest customer, who is in China, went under. After that, all of those open positions were closed. It looks like we're expected to make do with half of the number of developers indefinitely.
Re: (Score:1)
> mythical man month
But that is also the reason it is much more efficient to have fewer developers work much longer hours. Communication is such a huge overhead. Adding more developers doesn't really help short-term so we just have to work longer hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Next thing, you are going to tell me that with 18 women, I can't have a baby in 2 weeks.
Re: (Score:3)
We call those "hundreds." We have scrum at 11pm to make sure everyone stays late. I will have been in the industry for 30 years as of December, and everywhere I've worked has ended-up like this. I haven't had a full week off since 1993. I've changed jobs several times to get away from this, but the new jobs always end-up like this. Nearly everywhere we've tried to hire more developers, but there's never enough. When you get so far behind, it's harder to hire people since they don't want to work that many hours which makes the problem worse. The startup I work for now has plenty of money in the bank, but we can't even get qualified people to submit resumes. The money is great since there's such a shortage, but I'd rather have my life back.
Why would you continue to work in such a job? I've been in the tech industry for nearly 30 years, mostly with startups, and am currently working for a small (but growing) startup. We're hiring tech staff as fast as we can, but can't fill positions fast enough. Yet we still have work-life balance, even working as much as a 60 hour week is rare, everyone is encouraged to use vacation, I've got 3 weeks off in 2 weeks. If you haven't taken a full week off since 1993, that's your own preference, you can't blame
Re: (Score:1)
>Also, you don't sound very important if you can take three weeks off.
If the role is operationally important to the business then others should be cross trained so if you go under a bus the place doesn't come to a halt. You might be better at it than others but shouldn't be essential.
If the role is strategic then a couple of weeks won't make much difference.
A lot of posters are confusing being busy with being effective.
Re:Probably will just make our jobs harder (Score:4, Informative)
> can't fill positions...everyone is encouraged to use vacation,
How in the heck does that work? You don't have enough people and still allow vacation time? That doesn't sound likely. I'm a developer in my early forties and nearly all of my friends are developers, but I can't remember any of us ever taking an entire week off. If you can't fill positions as you claim (and I believe that part), how can people take time off?
The feature backlog gets longer and estimates for new features get longer... as we add people, then we can finish features faster. Isn't that how most sane companies do it? I don't see how putting a moratorium on vacations is sustainable in the long run -- each week of vacation is 2% of a FTE, if that 2% is all that's keeping your company from failing, then you should start looking for a new job now.
Also, you don't sound very important if you can take three weeks off.
Your company is in a precarious position if no one can take time off -- there should be enough people cross trained that you can take off work without having work come to a screeching halt because you're not there. Making everyone a critical resource that can't be replaced is a terrible way to build a company and will lead to huge problems when a team member quits (or is sick) and suddenly no one can fill in.
Everyone on our team works hard to make sure that none of us are "very important", so yes, I am proud to say that I am "not very important" -- there's no excuse for having a single point of failure on a team, no one team member should be indispensable, and if he is, then he's not doing his job by cross training and writing documentation. Vacation is a good way to test this out -- it's better to find out sooner rather than later where the coverage gaps are.
I've had to cancel at least six vacations that I can remember since I graduated college. I have always been paid back the deposits I lost and have always gotten good bonuses in exchange, but if you don't have enough people, it isn't logical that you let people just not work.
We don't let people "just not work", we let people take time off for vacation, it's not like they are paid to sit around in the break room in a corner all glassy eyed.
I'd never think that a bonus was fair compensation for canceling a vacation, perhaps that's why I can take a vacation and you can't -- you're happy working at a job where you'll accept payment to cancel a vacation, and I'm willing to work for less money but have a more sane working environment.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't fill positions as you claim (and I believe that part), how can people take time off?
Since people can just leave, I really don't see the point of mandating ludicrously long hours. Once people start leaving, you just made your inability to hire people even worse.
Also, you don't sound very important if you can take three weeks off.
Sounds more important than someone who can't take three weeks off!
Re: (Score:2)
but if you don't have enough people, it isn't logical that you let people just not work.
Considering the fact that overworked people are less effective than those with a better work/life balance, it is very logical to still encourage vacation time when your staff is busy. Sure there are some rare times when a very important release keeps people working 60 hour weeks for a month or two, but if the company constantly thinks it is always in crunch time their workers will suffer. And that will impact the company just as it impacts the employees.
There are plenty of very successful people who fool th
Re:Probably will just make our jobs harder (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the most screwed-up stance. Benefits, all of them, are part of your compensation from the company. In my mind (not necessarily from a legal standpoint) they're obligated to provide the promised benefits, including vacation time. If they pretend benefits exist and don't let you exercise them, it's not a real benefit, it's a lie. Short-term exceptions are one thing (no, you can't take vacation during our busiest week of the year) but if an entire year passes without them finding a way to take your fully allotted amount of vacation, something is deeply, deeply wrong. It does not matter if they're chronically under-staffed. A year is more than enough time to either address it or come to terms with it and allow the existing employees to exercise their promised benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>> We have scrum at 11pm...
I am sorry, but that statement just is so stupid on face value. I understand that most people say "Oh company X doesn't really do scrum" or "Scrum isn't done right anywhere." etc. But if your formal process is to actually have a meeting AFTER business hours... you have a pretty serious problem; least of which is that you aren't implementing scrum. I can understand if you got an off shore team in India/Turkey/Whocaresville. If you need to sync with them during their busi
Re: (Score:1)
You are so totally over-focused on the word "scrum". The point of the GP is that his company has a mandatory meeting late at night to encourage employees to work late. It doesn't matter what the meeting is for. It could be a scrum, it could be company announcements. It could be roll call, followed by dismissal. The only point is that employees are expected to attend.
Re: (Score:2)
22 years and you haven't found a non-shitty employer? Ever think that something about your location or that location's culture is perverting the companies you can choose from? Its not the companies, "hundreds" are few and far between. It has something to do with your selection process, or if you're in management, your ability to corrupt a company.
There are plenty of companies willing to provide good pay for regular hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Buy low, sell high. And if your employer sucks, take less money for a more balanced job.
Can't do it? Re-evaluate.
I work 40 hrs max, and the general expectation is no more than 50.
Relocate might also apply.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone that worked in the tech industry during the recessions in 1973, 1980, 1990, 2001, and 2007, unemployment for people with good tech skills was almost nonexistent during most of those bad times
In 2001, U-Haul trucks were streaming out of Silicon Valley. Plenty of good people lost their jobs (do you know how many companies went out of business? Not all of them were full of bad programmers). Also, it depressed salaries for a while. I'm highly in favor of tech salaries rising.
Re: (Score:2)
And the stupid thing is that for mental work, not even a 50h work-week increases productivity compared to 40, at least after you have been doing it for 2-3 weeks. Everything above 50 _decreases_ productivity. This has also been known for a long, long time (Henry Ford and contemporaries found it), making managers that demand more than 40h weeks long-term utterly incompetent.
General answer: no (Score:2)
General answer: no
Less general answer: most startups come from the U.S., not China; the economy is bad in China and Greece (and maybe two other EU countries, who are now regretting letting Germany be in charge of their economies, the way Germany wanted to be in WWI and WWII), and that's not a problem for the U.S.. This is not like the dot bomb, where everyone was afraid to invest in startups, who were going to lose money on every customer, but make it up in volume.
I fucking hope so (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But that IS the market. That IS capitalism. It's not some external, malign force: that's what the market is.
If you want it to actually be good, you're talking about some form of direction, oversight or regulation to stop obviously stupid or broken things from happening.
That's not a market anymore. The market is the thing that stampedes towards the stupid because everybody's doing it. See 'stock market'.
Maybe you just don't like capitalism as much as you thought you did! :)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want it to actually be good, you're talking about some form of direction, oversight or regulation to stop obviously stupid or broken things from happening.
That's not a market anymore. The market is the thing that stampedes towards the stupid because everybody's doing it. See 'stock market'.
What a stupid thing to say. In fact, you can't have a "free market" without oversight, because without it, people will always find ways to make it less free by gaming the system.
Sad Birds (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting... so Rovio, the makers of Angry Birds, is laying another 260 employees. Let me put that in perspective for you: I've been in videogame development for the last several decades, working on games ranging from bargain-bin titles to well-known MMOs. I've worked at companies with a dozen employees, and nave *never* been at a company with more than a couple hundred total employees (excluding parent company).
I'm just trying to figure out exactly were they doing with all those people... Does it actually require dozens of people to create an Angry Birds game? I'm having a hard time figuring out what they actually *did* with so many people. They happened to strike gold with Angry Birds, and they must have deluded themselves into believing they could strike gold with each subsequent swing of the pickaxe. Oops, the world has moved on to Candy Crush.
If they wisely invested their incredible earnings, they could have created a much smaller company that would have nearly infinite financial backing to do whatever they wanted. Instead, they succumbed to the temptation to grow into a giant by pretending that they could release the same product an infinite number of times. Now the entire world has played and grown tired of Angry Birds, so there's nothing left to fall back on.
Re: (Score:2)
they were doing nothing with all the people.
that's why it's so easy to lay them off.
you have to understand that they kept hiring people because they had money and there plenty of people to hire, they didn't have a plan what they were doing with them.
also you have to understand that hiring shitloads of people gave the execs more prestige in finland.
also just dumping money with no creative thought is why the angry birds marketing pictures are now all fancy 'pretty' 3d with no artistic merit.
also you might wan
Re: (Score:3)
If you are working "so many hours", you better be getting something significant for it. Because all of those developers you can't find clearly are, or you'd be hiring them. So if you are not happy with your job or hours and think you are worth more - stop whining, the jobs are out there!
Also: if you work at a startup, have tons of money in the bank and you can't hire, either the work is horrible or you just aren't offering enough. I hear this all the time: "all of the good candidates are going somewhere
Re: (Score:3)
EA has 8,400 employees. Activision has 6,700. Blizzard has 5,000. Maybe the companies you worked for were small time?
Rovio also sold Angry Birds T-Shirts, cartoons, etc. I imagine at a huge mark-up. Good for them, they managed to strike lightning with a silly mobile game, and took advantage of it thoroughly. Now these employees are no longer needed. It's not realistic to say they could have taken those profits and make a billion dollars with them. They aren't an amazing game studio, they just got lu
EA makes a lot of games (Score:2)
Comparing EA and Rovio is silly. Rovio has one product and a couple of other tiny ones. An accurate comparison of Rovio would be to one of EA's development studios, not to all of EA itself.
260 people is a ton for a studio. Even if you look at the really big studios working on the really big titles for EA and Activision, it is usually only a couple hundred people at most. That's to produce things like Battlefield (and it's associated engine, which is quite advanced) not to produce a silly mobile game where y
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, it's a basic matter of a tiny indie game company that inexplicably had $1B of unexpected revenue dropped in their lap all of a sudden.
They did what many companies, game dev or not would do, and tried to expand as fast as possible. The difference is game companies (with maybe Blizzard/WoW as an exception) can rarely sustain that revenue to the next year without another massive hit. And I'm sure as you know, there are very few left (maybe Rockstar and Bethesda?) who have managed to create that string of
Re: (Score:1)
I'm just trying to figure out exactly were they doing with all those people... Does it actually require dozens of people to create an Angry Birds game? I'm having a hard time figuring out what they actually *did* with so many people.
I imagine most of those people were in marketing, merchandising and so on.
I doubt... (Score:2)
So you're an investor, and are trying to make money. We were in love with Ali Baba, but it tanked along with the Chinese economy -- too risky. How about Europe? Well, most of that's tied into the EU with an ever-increasing risk of a Greek Euro exit and disastrous austerity policies, that's probably a good place to stay out of too.
The fundamentals of the US economy are looking great in comparison. Housing prices are starting to come back, unemployment is down, and a deficit to GDP ratio that looks to be [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, the debt is just a number. If the debt goes too high, the dollar drops relative to other currencies, making US goods cheaper abroad. If debt is too low, the dollar strengthens our currency relative to other currencies (based on their debt:GDP ratios). However, we haven't seen a weakening of the dollar nor the incoming inflation apocalypse predicted by debt worry fetishists fear.
The newer housing market seems to be fine as increased regulatory scrutiny have caused most banks (the ones I've talked to a
Can we get a new summary from someone smarter? (Score:3)
This summary is just a bunch of silly bullshit with vague references to actual news.
more than one pundit is wondering whether the tech industry will shift into 'fear mode,' which could be bad for the so-called 'unicorns' that need funders to keep partying like it's 1999
Fuck you. Go to jail. This isn't buzzfeed.
Share Market =/ Economy (Score:2)
Just because the share market value dropped does not mean that the overall economic conditions changed one bit. If anything the share market was over valued with price / earnings ratio being above the long term average and it has now corrected to just under that long term average.
Unlike what happened with Lehman brothers there is no capital crunch happening. Companies balance sheets are ridiculously strong at the moment with crazy amounts of cash sitting there doing SFA. Christ Cisco decided to take out
Re: (Score:2)
If your startup can't gain enough traction with a couple of 100k it was never going to happen for you you anyway.
Depends on the business you are in. If you are a mobile game startup, then 100k might be enough to see if the idea has legs. If you are an enterprise software platform startup, you need $50m to be competitive and even then you need better tech than your competitors with much deeper pockets. If you are starting a bank, even $50m might not be enough. If you are starting a restaurant, $500k or $1m might be a good amount to start with depending on your location and type of restaurant. But $100k is rarely e
Re: (Score:2)
No startup is going to get handed $50m on an idea and nothing else. And no startup is ever going to be a bank, not unless your definition of a startup is any new business. If you want to found a bank you need to pull together long term investors to come together to build a new venture.
And 500k for a restaurant?!?!?! You need 3 months of rent for the bond (10k-50k), 20k for fitout, 10k for inital consumables costs, then give yourself another 20-30k money to run with. And that is going to get you a hell fl
No. (Score:2)
>> Are we going to see money start drying up for startups?
No. Just say you're writing the next big data social media IoT app using 100% HTML5 and you'll be good to go.
Unicorn (Score:1)
Not for "Real" but Unicorns need not apply (Score:1)