Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why $53M Wasn't Enough to Scale Good Eggs

foodtechconnect.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 71 posts

Re: Why $53M Wasn't Enough to Scale Good Eggs

#21

Post by forgetsusername »

saosebastiao wrote: post #15

Facepalms all around. Supply chains are hard, and the idea that you can just write software to "solve" them is a level of hubris that defies description. Supply chains aren't a problem you can solve with big data. They aren't a problem that be solved with machine learning. In fact, you could combine the worlds top researchers in Computer Science, Economics, Operations Research, Mathematics, and Statistics, put them i…

>The presumption of stupidity[2]

That's an interesting post.

I notice the presumption of stupidity on Hacker News is very strong in the fields of auto manufacturing and banking.

Re: Why $53M Wasn't Enough to Scale Good Eggs

#22

Post by zenbowman »

akamaka wrote: post #19
zenbowman wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Organic food is fine. But it is, fundamentally, an anti-technology approach to growing food. You should be free to eat it if you want. The point is simply that firms that reject technology should not be described as "tech" companies simply because they use the Internet in some way. I'm not suggesting in any way that companies should not exist if they don't solve planet-scale problems.

I think folks underestimate how much agricultural science and technology there is that doesn't fall under the very narrow categories of genetic engineering and chemical pesticides. Modern society is built on top of the massive productivity improvements in agriculture that occurred before those were introduced, and there is plenty of room to innovate without using those methods. GMO crops are limited[1] in Europe, yet…

Of course there are other aspects to agricultural science and technology. However, there is nothing in this company that indicates they are advancing technology in any sense.

This is not to say they are not providing a worthwhile service. Even my local farmer's market provides a worthwhile service to me, but I don't call it a "tech market" just because some of the vendors have an online presence.

Re: Why $53M Wasn't Enough to Scale Good Eggs

#23

Post by griffinmb »

I really liked Good Eggs, and their customer support always seemed great. Unfortunately, my last order came an item short so they gave me a $5 credit on my next order. A day or two later, they close down in NY and now I won't be able to redeem the credit.

Not a big deal, but it was a bit annoying coming from a company I'd always used specifically for their great customer service.

Re: Why $53M Wasn't Enough to Scale Good Eggs

#24

Post by [deleted] »

akamaka wrote: post #19
zenbowman wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Organic food is fine. But it is, fundamentally, an anti-technology approach to growing food. You should be free to eat it if you want. The point is simply that firms that reject technology should not be described as "tech" companies simply because they use the Internet in some way. I'm not suggesting in any way that companies should not exist if they don't solve planet-scale problems.

I think folks underestimate how much agricultural science and technology there is that doesn't fall under the very narrow categories of genetic engineering and chemical pesticides. Modern society is built on top of the massive productivity improvements in agriculture that occurred before those were introduced, and there is plenty of room to innovate without using those methods. GMO crops are limited[1] in Europe, yet…

[deleted]

Re: Why $53M Wasn't Enough to Scale Good Eggs

#25

Post by dragonwriter »

akamaka wrote: post #19
zenbowman wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Organic food is fine. But it is, fundamentally, an anti-technology approach to growing food. You should be free to eat it if you want. The point is simply that firms that reject technology should not be described as "tech" companies simply because they use the Internet in some way. I'm not suggesting in any way that companies should not exist if they don't solve planet-scale problems.

I think folks underestimate how much agricultural science and technology there is that doesn't fall under the very narrow categories of genetic engineering and chemical pesticides. Modern society is built on top of the massive productivity improvements in agriculture that occurred before those were introduced, and there is plenty of room to innovate without using those methods. GMO crops are limited[1] in Europe, yet…

> GMO crops are banned in Europe

No, they aren't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_genetically_modi...

Re: Why $53M Wasn't Enough to Scale Good Eggs

#26

Post by ucaetano »

"Scaling Food Distribution Is Really, Really Hard"

No, it isn't. It is fairly straightforward and thousands of companies have scaled across the world.

Scaling a two-sided network focusing on providing a niche seasonal product to a niche audience is really, really hard. It wasn't the food distribution that wasn't scalable, it was the business model.

"We were motivated by enthusiasm for our mission and eagerness to bring Good Eggs to more people. But the best of intentions were not enough to overcome the complexity."

No, you were motivated by aggressive expansion targets to provide returns for the dozens of millions of dollars you took as investment and to make a lot of money.

Re: Why $53M Wasn't Enough to Scale Good Eggs

#27

Post by Retric »

zenbowman wrote: post #18
akamaka wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you just have a problem with organic food, or if this is just another reiteration of the tired old "if you're not trying to solve world hunger..." argument that gets used to criticize business ideas, but none of your points are really relevant to a company whose goal is to conveniently supply food to some of the richest cities in the world.

Organic food is fine. But it is, fundamentally, an anti-technology approach to growing food. You should be free to eat it if you want. The point is simply that firms that reject technology should not be described as "tech" companies simply because they use the Internet in some way. I'm not suggesting in any way that companies should not exist if they don't solve planet-scale problems.

The world produces ~three times as much food as we need to feed the world. Sure, we can push efficiency up further, but there is no real need for more calories and current practices create huge short and long term problems.

Not that fuel ethanol is drinkable, but you can get similar amounts of energy with other processes. Anyway, just the US ethanol production is over 2 gallons of per person on the planet. We are talking ~23,000 calories per person on the planet produced in a horribly inefficient process which is then burned.

Re: Why $53M Wasn't Enough to Scale Good Eggs

#28

Post by akamaka »

zenbowman wrote: post #22
akamaka wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think folks underestimate how much agricultural science and technology there is that doesn't fall under the very narrow categories of genetic engineering and chemical pesticides. Modern society is built on top of the massive productivity improvements in agriculture that occurred before those were introduced, and there is plenty of room to innovate without using those methods. GMO crops are limited[1] in Europe, yet…

Of course there are other aspects to agricultural science and technology. However, there is nothing in this company that indicates they are advancing technology in any sense. This is not to say they are not providing a worthwhile service. Even my local farmer's market provides a worthwhile service to me, but I don't call it a "tech market" just because some of the vendors have an online presence.

I see where you're coming from, but I think there are still a lot of possibilities for innovation here.

We waste 50% of food, with a big portion of that waste happening at the retail level. Food distribution services like Good Eggs have a pretty good shot at eliminating that waste.

Just to give an idea of the potential, attacking only food waste, without any other improvments to our food system, would comfortably allow earth to have a population of 10 billion.

Re: Why $53M Wasn't Enough to Scale Good Eggs

#29

Post by batbomb »

zenbowman wrote: post #8

It's a little ironic that goodeggs is considered a food technology firm, when it has nothing to do with technology, and in fact has a rejectionist approach to technology in the first place. Monsanto and Cargill are food technology firms. Advances in food technology are what allow us to feed 9 billion people with a fixed resource (arable land). There are serious innovations in food production and distribution that hav…

The goal isn't to have cheap food, it's to have good food.

People don't say "Ferrari isn't a car technology company" because their technology isn't targeted towards the masses.

Re: Why $53M Wasn't Enough to Scale Good Eggs

#30

Post by codingdave »

zenbowman wrote: post #18
akamaka wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you just have a problem with organic food, or if this is just another reiteration of the tired old "if you're not trying to solve world hunger..." argument that gets used to criticize business ideas, but none of your points are really relevant to a company whose goal is to conveniently supply food to some of the richest cities in the world.

Organic food is fine. But it is, fundamentally, an anti-technology approach to growing food. You should be free to eat it if you want. The point is simply that firms that reject technology should not be described as "tech" companies simply because they use the Internet in some way. I'm not suggesting in any way that companies should not exist if they don't solve planet-scale problems.

You have to know that organic vs. Monsanto is a hot button to push, so throwing that into your initial comment is a sure way to derail the conversation into arguments.

If you really just want to talk about the "tech" label, then you should just stick to that point.

Post reply on HN