Page 1 of 85 1234561151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 1687

Thread: CT 757: Home Alone

  1. #1

    CT 757: Home Alone

    PLACEHOLDER FOR MAFIA
    Last edited by DeacDiggler; 08-11-2022 at 09:31 AM.

  2. #2

  3. #3
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    50,169
    Quote Originally Posted by DeacDiggler View Post
    this is right up there with Write-offs

    just below is Jerry Returning Jacket and Jerry at the Car Rental Counter

  4. #4
    THE quintessential dwarf dartsndeacs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    paradise
    Posts
    47,725
    just drivin' round in John Voight's car

  5. #5
    based on CT title I actually thought plama won this upon returning from a work call

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by cookoutdeac View Post
    based on CT title I actually thought plama won this upon returning from a work call
    Lol, plama doesn't work

  7. #7
    THE quintessential dwarf dartsndeacs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    paradise
    Posts
    47,725
    I oft get confused if this is just a semantic commentary or whether phan doesn't understand what people mean when they type
    just drivin' round in John Voight's car

  8. #8
    This will be a boring side topic that nobody cares about but ITC asked me what I found interesting about that article and diggler said this

    also, the entire game of running a startup is to keep growing revenue forever and sell to a bigger sucker before the music stops playing. anyone not invested in it should be thrilled that uber and the rest of these companies existed, where the rich essentially funded the lifestyles of the middle class. too bad the music stopped.
    First let me stipulate Iím an English major and an idiot who talks out of his ass. With that out of the way


    I now work on the product management/development side, and I feel like digglerís analysis is emblematic of the Big Capital Problem. A startup should have a product that solves an actual need and differentiate itself from existing products by XYZ and has a path to being profitable. At the highest end of VC/tech funding like Uber/Netflix/DoorDash, they skipped some major steps and there is no path to profitability except for raising your prices or exploiting your labor, neither of which is sustainable. And yet you can take those companies public and trade on them and get rich AF or sell them for a 100x and get rich AF, and youíve created absolutely zero value.

    And in the case of Netflix, who cares if they go out of business, it was entertaining and for a while before they had competitors, cheap for customers and decent for creators. No real harm done. But in the case of Uber you decimated an industry (cabs) and exploited cheap labor and you donít have a real product that will last even with your other verticals. DoorDash even worse for restaurants, killing what was already a razor thin margin.

    Feels like a serious structural problem exacerbating inequality and not a very good and just and neoliberal well regulated market approach to running an economy. I donít really care at the end of the day that the Atlantic needed to put ďmillennialĒ into the angle to get people to click, I feel like we misdiagnose the underlying issue in our typical conversation about this. But if I missed the conversation and it was already had, oh well.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by wakephan09 View Post
    Lol, plama doesn't work
    sorry i'll rewrite

    based on CT title I (upon returning from a work call) actually thought plama won this

  10. #10
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    50,169
    but Uber was a superior experience - it did solve a problem

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by TownieDeac View Post
    This will be a boring side topic that nobody cares about but ITC asked me what I found interesting about that article and diggler said this



    First let me stipulate Iím an English major and an idiot who talks out of his ass. With that out of the way


    I now work on the product management/development side, and I feel like digglerís analysis is emblematic of the Big Capital Problem. A startup should have a product that solves an actual need and differentiate itself from existing products by XYZ and has a path to being profitable. At the highest end of VC/tech funding like Uber/Netflix/DoorDash, they skipped some major steps and there is no path to profitability except for raising your prices or exploiting your labor, neither of which is sustainable. And yet you can take those companies public and trade on them and get rich AF or sell them for a 100x and get rich AF, and youíve created absolutely zero value.

    And in the case of Netflix, who cares if they go out of business, it was entertaining and for a while before they had competitors, cheap for customers and decent for creators. No real harm done. But in the case of Uber you decimated an industry (cabs) and exploited cheap labor and you donít have a real product that will last even with your other verticals. DoorDash even worse for restaurants, killing what was already a razor thin margin.

    Feels like a serious structural problem exacerbating inequality and not a very good and just and neoliberal well regulated market approach to running an economy. I donít really care at the end of the day that the Atlantic needed to put ďmillennialĒ into the angle to get people to click, I feel like we misdiagnose the underlying issue in our typical conversation about this. But if I missed the conversation and it was already had, oh well.
    I don't think these companies can't be profitable (and a better experience than the old alternatives), that's the big assumption you're making

    they just can't be profitable at the SCALE all the VCs who have burned money into them want them to be to make that burnt money worth it, so it just looks like they can't be successful because that's what their win condition is now set too

    if they totally drop out there's no reason smaller versions can't bootstrap their way to profitability in this space, or taxis can't make a resurgence with hopefully better ride-hailing and payment systems in place now that we've all seen what it can be and expect it

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by dartsndeacs View Post
    I oft get confused if this is just a semantic commentary or whether phan doesn't understand what people mean when they type
    I delight in playing with ambiguity

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by ImTheCaptain View Post
    but Uber was a superior experience - it did solve a problem
    100%

    lets not have paint the taxi industry as some shining success, calling for rides that may or may not ever show up, no way to pay digitally or taxis with card readers always "broken", no tracking at all of positions or routes for users

  14. #14
    THE quintessential dwarf dartsndeacs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    paradise
    Posts
    47,725
    I figure y'all will appreciate I'm deciding to take losing weight seriously. So now I walk home every day for lunch (no more delivery) and play Dance Dance Revolution for 30 minutes a day.
    just drivin' round in John Voight's car

  15. #15
    man
    semi-aquatic like otters be.

  16. #16
    actually depressing
    semi-aquatic like otters be.

  17. #17
    the other real problem is that if you're bootstrapping a company like this and trying to be profitable from the get-go, you do get FUCKED (or just acquired) by the companies pursuing growth at all costs with free VC money

    so you just don't get many companies doing it until that goes away

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by ImTheCaptain View Post
    but Uber was a superior experience - it did solve a problem
    Agreed, big time, it was a good product, but never had a path to proper profitability. Look at their losses!

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by cookoutdeac View Post
    I don't think these companies can't be profitable (and a better experience than the old alternatives), that's the big assumption you're making

    they just can't be profitable at the SCALE all the VCs who have burned money into them want them to be to make that burnt money worth it, so it just looks like they can't be successful because that's what their win condition is now set too

    if they totally drop out there's no reason smaller versions can't bootstrap their way to profitability in this space, or taxis can't make a resurgence with hopefully better ride-hailing and payment systems in place now that we've all seen what it can be and expect it
    A fair point but scale is a crucial element in your basic Business Plan

  20. #20
    THE quintessential dwarf dartsndeacs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    paradise
    Posts
    47,725
    Quote Originally Posted by TownieDeac View Post
    Agreed, big time, it was a good product, but never had a path to proper profitability. Look at their losses!
    well wasn't the plan self driving cars?
    just drivin' round in John Voight's car

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •