A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants
1–10 of 79 posts
Re: A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants
#2It will be interesting to see if this one takes off more than a similar one that launched about a decade ago now...
http://techcrunch.com/2007/11/15/social-networking-platform-...
CrowdVine also let people setup custom white-label social networks, though I suppose its founder didn't have as neat of a background story as a Ning founder.
It's probably a nice business model, but not a "startup" by PG's standards, since this type of thing doesn't grow rapidly, intentionally.
Re: A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants
#3It will be interesting to see if this one takes off more than a similar one that launched about a decade ago now... http://techcrunch.com/2007/11/15/social-networking-platform-... CrowdVine also let people setup custom white-label social networks, though I suppose its founder didn't have as neat of a background story as a Ning founder. It's probably a nice business model, but not a "startup" by PG's standards, since…
I love Hacker News, but my least favourite thing about it all is how we glorify 'startups'. It's honestly just a really weird business model, that seems like it's bound to inspire things like the recent Zenefits scandal, Uber and Airbnb's disregard for regulation, etc. etc. etc. I dunno... like this story implies, it just seems totally ass-backwards to focus on growth before you're profitable, and pretty unhealthy to boot.
Re: A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants
#4It will be interesting to see if this one takes off more than a similar one that launched about a decade ago now... http://techcrunch.com/2007/11/15/social-networking-platform-... CrowdVine also let people setup custom white-label social networks, though I suppose its founder didn't have as neat of a background story as a Ning founder. It's probably a nice business model, but not a "startup" by PG's standards, since…
I love Hacker News, but my least favourite thing about it all is how we glorify 'startups'. It's honestly just a really weird business model, that seems like it's bound to inspire things like the recent Zenefits scandal, Uber and Airbnb's disregard for regulation, etc. etc. etc. I dunno... like this story implies, it just seems totally ass-backwards to focus on growth before you're profitable, and pretty unhealthy to…
I kinda have to agree. Obviously, I don't have hard numbers to support the notion, but having seen two full boom-bust cycles (I started working in tech in '97) and, looking at what feels more and more like the precipice of a third, I'm strongly inclined to believe that the "growth über alles" mentality that can tend to be a defining aspect of "startup-hood" has probably actually destroyed more good ideas than it's fostered.
Re: A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants
#5It will be interesting to see if this one takes off more than a similar one that launched about a decade ago now... http://techcrunch.com/2007/11/15/social-networking-platform-... CrowdVine also let people setup custom white-label social networks, though I suppose its founder didn't have as neat of a background story as a Ning founder. It's probably a nice business model, but not a "startup" by PG's standards, since…
I love Hacker News, but my least favourite thing about it all is how we glorify 'startups'. It's honestly just a really weird business model, that seems like it's bound to inspire things like the recent Zenefits scandal, Uber and Airbnb's disregard for regulation, etc. etc. etc. I dunno... like this story implies, it just seems totally ass-backwards to focus on growth before you're profitable, and pretty unhealthy to…
Personally, I would love a solid business model where the point is to have flatter management / pay structures instead of making everybody rich. Enough that everyone gets paid well and has some autonomy, but decisions don't get locked up by too much democracy.
Re: A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants
#6I really wish startups would pay attention to this: “The nice thing about revenue is it’s not diluted capital”. Far too often I see people look at their valuations as something like a scorecard for success. And if you can cash out, then I suppose more power to you. But this programmer is tired of the ".com", "web 2.0", "unicorn" bubbles... I wish companies would concentrate on providing value to their customers.
Re: A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants
#7I really wish startups would pay attention to this: “The nice thing about revenue is it’s not diluted capital”. Far too often I see people look at their valuations as something like a scorecard for success. And if you can cash out, then I suppose more power to you. But this programmer is tired of the ".com", "web 2.0", "unicorn" bubbles... I wish companies would concentrate on providing value to their customers.
I wish companies would concentrate on providing value to their customers.
That's just it, though. "Customers" are just another measure of your value to the people to whom you're actually beholden: investors. As long as you're providing value (perceived or actual) to them, you're winning this game. Ideally, that involves providing value to customers, as well, but it's demonstrably not necessary.
Re: A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants
#8It will be interesting to see if this one takes off more than a similar one that launched about a decade ago now... http://techcrunch.com/2007/11/15/social-networking-platform-... CrowdVine also let people setup custom white-label social networks, though I suppose its founder didn't have as neat of a background story as a Ning founder. It's probably a nice business model, but not a "startup" by PG's standards, since…
I love Hacker News, but my least favourite thing about it all is how we glorify 'startups'. It's honestly just a really weird business model, that seems like it's bound to inspire things like the recent Zenefits scandal, Uber and Airbnb's disregard for regulation, etc. etc. etc. I dunno... like this story implies, it just seems totally ass-backwards to focus on growth before you're profitable, and pretty unhealthy to…
I've started to prefer (including by using it to influence where I spend money) companies that grow the old fashioned way: Make some money and use it to make a little more. Or heaven forbid, were bootstrapped.
Why? Seems from experience to be far less likely to produce an "Our Incredible Journey" message.
I don't want to sign up for a service, love it, find it useful and be told GTFO after 2 years, ps Google bought us.
I've also got very wary of using any new Google, Facebook etc service. Chances are, it won't last.
There's something incredibly unhealthy about the way it's all about getting to $1bn and to hell with the product, customers, that got you there etc. I also think the burn rates have got out of hand. Surely there's a better way than burning £20m a year to produce something you'll shutter without a second thought when it runs out. What happened to seeking profit and longevity?
I'm very glad I had my time in startups though!
Re: A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants
#9I really wish startups would pay attention to this: “The nice thing about revenue is it’s not diluted capital”. Far too often I see people look at their valuations as something like a scorecard for success. And if you can cash out, then I suppose more power to you. But this programmer is tired of the ".com", "web 2.0", "unicorn" bubbles... I wish companies would concentrate on providing value to their customers.
I wish companies would concentrate on providing value to their customers. That's just it, though. "Customers" are just another measure of your value to the people to whom you're actually beholden: investors. As long as you're providing value (perceived or actual) to them, you're winning this game. Ideally, that involves providing value to customers, as well, but it's demonstrably not necessary.
[deleted]
Re: A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants
#10This site first lets me read the article above the fold and then ambushes me with a "disable ad blocking or pay" screen.
So I disable Adblocker and get the same message again. Fuck you, I'm not diabling Ghostery and letting you get to my social media information.
The anti-adblocking movement is going too far.