About 20% of Tech Startups Worth More Than $1 Billion Will Fail, Accel Says
'I think maybe out of that thousand, 20% fully die. The end,' Wong said Thursday at the Bloomberg Tech conference in San Francisco.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
Here's what Warren Buffett says will be the ultimate growth industry!
Artificial intelligence (AI) has a lot of investors excited right now, yet billionaire investor Warren Buffett isn't one of them. Despite owning shares in companies such as Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) and Amazon, none of these investments were made solely based on their AI potential. In fact, Buffett seems to be quite cautious of the technology. Instead, he's warned investors that AI will give rise to an enormous amount of fraud, making scamming the biggest 'growth industry of all time'. Sticking to his principles Despite his hesitant stance, Buffett isn't blind to the benefits of this emerging technology. In the right hands, AI can be a remarkable tool with countless applications in finance, cybersecurity, automation, and work productivity among others. However, with so many businesses claiming to be the next big thing, Buffett and his team are remaining disciplined. They're focusing on the industries they understand the most, zooming in on the businesses with the widest competitive moats. That means rather than chasing speculative AI stocks, he's looking at the established players across the sectors that can leverage AI to improve their existing operations, using the proceeds to run phenomenal capital-return programmes. And right now, Apple seems to fit that bill. Exploring Apple's potential While Buffett's investment vehicle Berkshire Hathaway has trimmed its position in Apple throughout last year, it remains one of its largest holdings, representing 24% of the portfolio. As one of the largest consumer technology companies in the world, Apple produces an enormous amount of free cash flow driven by a loyal customer ecosystem. Since 2013, the company's been busy consistently buying back its own shares, with around $775bn spent over the last 12 years. To put this into perspective, that's enough money to buy the entirety of Visa with another $100bn to spare. And with management approving yet another $100bn in buybacks during 2025, the rewards for shareholders look set to continue, especially if the firm can deliver on its AI ambitions. So far, Apple has lagged when it comes to AI implementation. The rollout of Apple Intelligence has actually been quite slow and riddled with delays, which have seemingly continued into 2025. And the ongoing trade disruptions from newly-announced US tariffs aren't exactly helping matters, which have led to around a quarter of Apple's market-cap being lost in 2025. However, that might soon change. The company has a record number of revamped product launches in the second half of 2025. That includes four new iPhone models, and updates for its AirPods, Apple Watches, iPads, and MacBooks. And with plans to hire another 20,000 people over the next four years to expand its R&D capabilities, the firm might soon be catching up on the AI front, generating even more cash flow over the long run. Perhaps that's why Buffett continues to hold a significant chunk of shares. And it's why I think investors may want to take a closer look at this business. The post Here's what Warren Buffett says will be the ultimate growth industry! appeared first on The Motley Fool UK. More reading 5 Stocks For Trying To Build Wealth After 50 One Top Growth Stock from the Motley Fool Zaven Boyrazian has no position in any of the shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has recommended Apple. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Motley Fool UK 2025
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
Better Energy Stock: Diamondback Energy vs. Chevron
Key Points Chevron's integrated business and its rock-solid balance sheet help secure its dividend. Diamondback Energy is a well-run oil and gas company that offers good upside due to the potential for higher oil prices. Ultimately, the decision comes down to each individual's risk profile, but one stock stands out as a clear winner for passive income-seeking investors. 10 stocks we like better than Diamondback Energy › Comparing a pure-play exploration and production in the Permian Basin, Diamondback Energy (NASDAQ: FANG), with an integrated energy major, Chevron (NYSE: CVX), sheds light on many of the questions that oil and gas-focused investors face in the coming years. Let's take a look at which company might suit which type of investor better. The role of oil prices There's no getting around this question when investing in energy stocks, but the answers to it may not be immediately apparent. It's important to note that both these companies are very well run and pride themselves on a relatively low operating "break-even" oil price. This price represents the lowest price of oil needed to cover the cost of the company's operating expenses, existing wells (maintenance capital spending), and base dividend. Chevron's break-even price for oil is in the $30 per barrel range accoring to a Wood Mackenzie survey. Diamondback's management estimates its equivalent break-even price is $37 per barrel. That would appear to give Chevron the upper hand. However, consider that Chevron is an integrated major with substantial downstream and chemicals operations, which tend to perform well with a lower oil price; these factors are included in the break-even calculation. On the other hand, Diamondback is purely an exploration and production company. Moreover, Diamondback utilizes hedging to mitigate downside exposure to oil prices. Its hedges currently apply down to a price of oil of about $55 per barrel, meaning it has upside exposure to a price of oil above $55 per barrel. As such, you can think of Chevron's dividend (currently yielding 4.8%) as safe down to $30 per barrel, and Diamondback's base dividend (currently yielding 2.9%) as safe down to $37 per barrel. Consequently, if you are the type of investor primarily looking for yield and wanting to sleep safely at night, Chevron is the better investment for you. Don't forget the upside The flip side of the argument is that Diamondback has more exposure to a higher oil price, which is what one might expect, given that it's an exploration and production company. To provide some context for how this works, here's a look at Diamondback's management's estimated adjusted 2025 free cash flow (FCF) across a range of oil prices. For reference, Diamondback aims to return 50% of FCF to shareholders in the form of dividends (base and variable) and share buybacks. It has $1.845 billion remaining as part of a $6 billion share buyback authorization program. As of its first quarter, Diamondback made $829 million in share buybacks, equivalent to about $2.80 per share. Therefore, if management decided not to make any more buybacks and pay the remaining 50% in full-year FCF in dividends (base of $4, plus a variable dividend), then it could offer $5.20 in dividends, yielding 3.8%, assuming a price of oil of $60 a barrel. That theoretical figure rises $8.70 in dividends, yielding 6.4%, assuming a price of $80 a barrel. See what I mean by Diamondback having more upside exposure to the price of oil? Price of Oil per Barrel Free Cash Flow Free Cash Flow Per Share Free Cash Flow Yield (based on the current market price of Diamondback Energy of $136.5 a share) $50 per barrel $4.15 billion $14 10.3% $60 per barrel $4.85 billion $16 11.7% $70 per barrel $5.85 billion $20 14.7% $80 per barrel $6.85 billion $23 16.8% Data source: Diamondback Energy presentations. Table by author. In case you are wondering, based on these assumptions, the price of oil would have to be approximately $67 per barrel to get Diamondback's dividend yield to be equivalent to Chevron's current yield -- curiously enough, that's roughly the current price of oil now. Diamondback or Chevron? Ultimately, dividend-focused investors and those concerned about being overly exposed to oil prices will favor Chevron. In addition, Chevron's diversified operations (its production in the Permian is comparable to Diamondback's, but it has substantial other global assets, plus midstream and downstream operations) give it a place to focus its investment, even in the event of a sustained fall in oil prices. In contrast, other than reducing capital investment in response to lower prices (something Diamondback has already done this year), it's hard to think of what significant move a company like Diamondback can make. That said, many investors buy oil stocks precisely because they want exposure to the upside of oil, and Diamondback is a high-quality operator that has taken measures to limit its downside exposure. As such, nothing is stopping you from buying both stocks, as they are both attractive for passive income-seeking investors. Should you buy stock in Diamondback Energy right now? Before you buy stock in Diamondback Energy, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Diamondback Energy wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $652,133!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,056,790!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,048% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 180% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 15, 2025 Lee Samaha has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Chevron. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Better Energy Stock: Diamondback Energy vs. Chevron was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Digital Trends
2 minutes ago
- Digital Trends
Are external GPUs still worth it in 2025?
External GPUs (eGPUs) have long promised a tantalizing compromise: portability when you need it, and desktop-class performance when you don't. But as laptop GPUs get faster and AI workloads move to dedicated NPUs, the value proposition of an eGPU dock feels less straightforward than ever. For gamers and creative professionals tied to thin-and-light ultrabooks, eGPUs still offer a way to transform a modest machine into a graphics powerhouse. Thunderbolt 5 and the fairly new Oculink interfaces now offer significantly improved bandwidth over their predecessors, reducing bottlenecks that once plagued external GPU performance. However, that doesn't mean all the original drawbacks have been solved. Recommended Videos Take for instance, Razer's newly launched Core X V2, which showcases the current state of external GPU (eGPU) technology by adopting the latest Thunderbolt 5 interface. This upgrade significantly boosts bandwidth up to 80 Gbps in both directions (bi-directional) or can utilize a 'Bandwidth Boost' mode for up to 120 Gbps for video-intensive tasks in one direction while maintaining 40 Gbps in the other. These speeds allow desktop-grade GPUs to perform more effectively over a cable than ever before. However, the Core X V2 also reflects modern trade-offs by dropping the built-in power supply and I/O ports found in earlier models requiring users to bring their own power supply unit and, optionally, buy a separate $390 dock for connectivity. At $350, it's also more expensive than its predecessor despite being more stripped down. On top of that, compatibility is now limited to devices running on Windows with either a Thunderbolt 4/5 or USB4 port while Apple Silicon Macs remain unsupported. One of the biggest arguments against eGPUs in 2025 is diminishing returns. While they still offer a dramatic performance uplift over integrated graphics, many premium laptops come with capable discrete GPUs that can handle most modern games at respectable settings and resolutions. For creators, the line between desktop and mobile GPUs has narrowed since render times and AI-assisted workflows are often bottlenecked more by CPU and memory than by pure GPU horsepower. Performance: Gains and Limitations Even with fast Thunderbolt links, eGPUs still lose some speed compared to an internal GPU slot. PC Gamer conducted a detailed performance analysis of eGPU setups using two fairly modern graphics cards including an RTX 4070 Ti and an RTX 4090. The testing was done across four different configurations including a Thunderbolt eGPU dock, an OCuLink eGPU dock (via Minisforum DEG-1), PCIe x8 (Beelink EX Dock), and a native desktop PCIe x16 connection. All tests were run on up-to-date hardware platforms with DDR5 memory and PCIe 4.0 support to ensure consistency. Benchmarks were performed at 1440p using ultra settings, measuring both average framerates and 1% lows to assess frame pacing and stutter. The goal was to evaluate how each connection standard affected GPU performance in real-world gaming scenarios. The RTX 4070 Ti results showed that Thunderbolt was by far the most limiting setup, running approximately 25% slower than OCuLink and showing pronounced frame stutter and poor 1% lows. OCuLink, despite also being limited to four PCIe lanes, performed noticeably better and approached desktop-like averages in many cases, though some minor stutter remained. Interestingly, the PCIe x8 configuration performed nearly identically to full PCIe x16 desktop usage, proving that eight lanes are sufficient for this mid-range GPU. In our own testing of the Minisforum DEG1, a $99 open-air eGPU dock using the OCuLink standard, we found that it manages to deliver good real-world performance with only modest impact even when paired with high-end GPUs. When tested with an RTX 4080 Super, Cyberpunk 2077 and Returnal ran nearly identically to a desktop setup, while demanding titles like Red Dead Redemption 2 and Forza Horizon 5 showed a 12% drop. Horizon Zero Dawn was the exception, with a ~35% performance decline, but this still outperforms much older eGPU systems. In benchmarks like 3DMark Time Spy on a 4060 Ti, the DEG1 achieved graphics scores between ~9,600 and 13,500, depending on the host, with PCIe‑Gen4 bandwidth measured around 6–6.7 GB/s—indicating its ability to preserve the majority of a card's potential in realistic scenarios. It is fair to conclude that eGPUs still carry notable bandwidth limitations, particularly when paired with high-end GPUs. While newer interfaces like Thunderbolt 5 and OCuLink improve average framerates, stuttering remains a major bottleneck that undermines the experience. As such, it is recommended that eGPU users are better off pairing their enclosures with upper mid-range cards which are less likely to be choked by the limited bandwidth and can still deliver solid performance without the drawbacks of stutter-heavy frame pacing. In short, expect roughly 70–80% of desktop performance from an external setup, and diminishing returns as you push the GPU size upward. If you plan to output to the laptop's own screen rather than an external monitor, prepare for even more overhead as some tests found the performance penalty shrinks with an external display because data doesn't have to double-hop back into the laptop. Cost and Portability A core drawback of eGPUs is the price of admission. The enclosure itself can cost hundreds of dollars. Razer's Core X V2 is $350 on its own, not including the GPU or even a power supply. Many older TB4 enclosures similarly went for $200–400. Then you must buy a desktop-class GPU which is a luxury on its own and, in most cases, an ATX power supply unless the enclosure includes one. Compare that to buying a new gaming laptop or compact desktop for a similar investment, you could get a machine that already has a GPU with no latency penalty. Portability is another concern. An eGPU setup is far from 'light and portable' especially the ones that allow you to install a desktop class GPU. You'd dock it at home or office, not toss it in a backpack on a plane. By contrast, a high-end gaming laptop contains its GPU internally and requires only one power cord. Some companies have tried truly portable eGPUs for instance, the ROG XG Mobile dock from Asus. While the previous version included a proprietary connector, the latest variant has moved to TB5 expanding compatibility to a wider range of devices. However, it is important to know that Asus could only make the dock portable by including laptop-class GPUs instead of the more powerful desktop counterparts . Compatibility quirks also add to the hassle. You need a Thunderbolt or USB4 port with proper support, with some Windows laptops still lacking a TB port entirely. Hot-plugging is generally supported on PC, but modern Macs with Apple Silicon simply do not support any sort of external GPUs. Additionally, driver issues can crop up. While Windows 11 handles many eGPUs better than older Windows 10 did, it's not flawless. In short, an eGPU is a power-up for your laptop, but only when docked, so you must accept that you're essentially carrying a desktop GPU in one giant box, plus another dongle for ports if needed. Alternatives and Outlook Given these trade-offs, many look at alternatives. Laptops have soldered or integrated GPUs that can't be swapped. Thus, in many cases, buying a new laptop with a better GPU is simpler than an eGPU. With every laptop refresh cycle, vendors cram more GPU power into slim machines, so a consumer might choose to buy a new $1500 gaming laptop instead of spending on an eGPU setup for their old ultrabook. Additionally, services like Nvidia GeForce Now, Xbox Cloud Gaming, and Amazon Luna have matured. These let users stream AAA games to any device without a local GPU. For gamers with good internet connection, cloud services can deliver 4K at 60–120 FPS with minimal local hardware. Creative professionals likewise have cloud rendering options (e.g. Blender or Adobe cloud rendering). The upside is no hardware purchase, only a subscription. The downside is latency and variable image quality which is unacceptable for competitive play or precision tasks. But for some, cloud gaming can entirely replace the need for an eGPU or even a powerful PC, especially on portable devices like tablets. External GPU docks are more of a specialty solution than a mass-market trend. They've never been as popular as once hoped, and advances in laptop hardware and cloud services have only chipped away at their appeal. That said, they aren't completely dead. For a subset of users say, a Linux mini-PC or Windows handheld, an eGPU might be the only way to run high-end games or CUDA workloads. Ultimately, eGPUs remain a niche tool, useful if you already have a compatible laptop and an extra graphics card you want to reuse. They offer a clear benefit (big jump in GPU power on demand) but demand tradeoffs in cost, weight, and complexity.
