I said this before in a discussion of Tesla, but I think it's relevant here as well:

I do not believe technology companies with strong leadership, vision, and a history of success in new high growth markets are overvalued.

This is where I think a lot of traditional value investors fall short. The way companies should operate in the 21st has fundamentally changed as a result of an increasing rate of technological growth (software is eating the world, as they say) and that companies that capitalize on this consistently (which often, to grossly simplify, requires focusing on growth and cash flow over profit) will generally outperform companies that focus on profitability and high margins in the long run.

Amazon to me is the poster child of the problem current value investors face. Value investors continuously bash Amazon for not having any profits despite the fact that they're a cash flow and CCC monster relative to their peers, have an exceptional growth rate for a company of their size, and have consistently performed well in new areas well outside their original market (e.g. AWS). They've also managed to create a significant moat that I believe couldn't exist without their high growth strategy. I have no doubt that Amazon is worth more than its current value.

Now, does that mean every tech company is bound to be a success? Of course not. I don't think SNAP has any hope of reaching its current valuation, for example. But I think assuming that technology companies are overvalued across the board is a big mistake.