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

31–40 of 71 posts

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

#31

Post by rwhitman »

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…

Not to mention that food itself does not elicit rational behavior. If we were remotely logical about how we consume food, we'd all be voluntarily eating a nutrition paste out of a tube every morning.

Eating food is an animal need, and therefore we have instinctual animal behaviors around supplying it and consuming it that just can't fit into any sort of rational mental model. There are functions around food behavior built into our DNA and we haven't had enough generations since the invention of agriculture to evolve beyond them yet. Heck, I'd even guess we would all benefit if food supply chains were more decentralized and chaotic than they are already.

This irrationality is unfortunately a difficult thing for engineering-minded people to accept, so it makes sense that the valley would just keep on making these same mistakes with every generation. So it goes

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

#32

Post by creamyhorror »

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…

Thanks for the very interesting post. What sort of companies are providing the supply chain / logistics management/optimization consulting services that you mention (or is it mostly done in-house?)? Are any focusing on serving Asia?

I wonder if there's a good startup opportunity in this industry in Asia; many firms possibly haven't figured out the application of mathematics/ops-research to their supply chains yet, at least compared to the level of top US firms.

Logistics (delivery) startups are burgeoning in Asia, but no doubt will face these issues soon - maybe specialized mathematical expertise will help.

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

#33

Post by beambot »

batbomb wrote: post #29
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.

It's more like comparing to Top Gear than Ferrari...

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

#34

Post by CPLX »

Retric wrote: post #27
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.

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 tal…

> Not that ethanol is drinkable

Ethanol is eminently drinkable, in fact I enjoyed some with tonic water and lime just the other night.

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

#35

Post by CPLX »

exelius wrote: post #7

Sometimes "do things that don't scale" is bad advice. It's great advice when starting out (because you should be focused on building an appealing product before you worry about scaling it), but you need to be using your scale-up to test ways of breaking out of doing the "things that don't scale". The idea is to turn it into a forcing function for the company: if you can't find a better way to scale, you're done. Disr…

I think it's basically a contraction for "do things that don't scale until you get $50MM or whatever and then stop doing that."

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

#36

Post by jordank »

A couple more points here:

1. A lot of people who care about organic and farm-to-table ethos already live in areas with significant market coverage. Those people will tend to have existing behaviors — GoodEggs sought to displace these. This can be hard if existing players do good-enough job.

2. The paradox of some delivery services is that the people who need them most are sometimes the most economically unviable customers (because they are geographically spread out, because they are lacking in funds or both).

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

#38

Post by subpixel »

Part of their operation was driving a truck up to Fishkill, NY and filling it with goods from Hudson Valley producers, many of who are too small to be commercially distributed already. I bet someone could keep doing that and make good money. But probably not enough money to make VC's happy.

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

#39

Post by faithfone »

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…

I sense from your comment that Monsanto is your client or employer. Would that be correct?

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

#40

Post by zenbowman »

codingdave wrote: post #30
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.

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.

It's a hot topic, yes, but an important one. We are in an age where policy is decided by a scientifically illiterate public, with potentially devastating consequences for people outside the developed world. That needs to be confronted head on, not shied away from.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/05/18/pew-vaccine...

Not being willing to talk about these issues is what allows fearmongers to win the day.

Post reply on HN