GoPro closed today at 8 a share, a $1.1bn valuation [1]. They went public in 2014 at 24 (about a $3.3bn valuation) after raising a round in 2012 from Foxconn at a $2.25bn valuation.
Their revenues are falling and their operations losing cash. They have $75 million of cash on their balance sheet, less than their Q1 2017 net loss.
It's not fair to say GoPro has failed simply because investors and traders had unrealistic expectations. The "action camera" market was already saturated in 2014, and it's hard to imagine how they would continue growing at their previous rate when they're selling replacements and minor upgrades.
It's possible they're in the process of failing, but it wouldn't surprise me if trying to meet unrealistic expectations caused a large part of their problems.
I think at this point the worst case scenario is that they get bought out by a bigger electronics company because their name brand alone is worth quite a bit.
Agreed that it's unfair to call it a failure. GoPro is what most people think of when you suggest filming something sports-related. They made a product which does what it says it does, and has become a very recognizable brand for action filming. Nothing lasts forever, I'd mark their efforts a success.
What does this have to do with classifying them as a success or failure?
But while we're on your topic, don't forget there is value in brand recognition and trust in a company which isn't a random Chinese vendor. And why do you think the Chinese clones exist at all? They followed the success of GoPro.
For enough people a premium iphone is worth the wait xtra cost, which is why Apples smartphone profits are greater than all other smartphone makers combined.
Right. GoPro to me is like the iPhone of the action cameras. Yes there might be other cameras with better performance, but when you think about an action camera and you have the budget you go for a GoPro. That can hardly be considered as a failure from the point of view of a product. Now, investor's point of view will clearly differ as per the data pointed out.
They aren't a failure because their stock price is low, that's a symptom. They are a failure because they couldn't create a sustainable business, and are hemorrhaging cash.
Their revenues are falling and their operations losing cash. They have $75 million of cash on their balance sheet, less than their Q1 2017 net loss.
[1] https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AGPRO&ei=fNBeWcCjCc...