Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I wish companies would concentrate on providing value to their customers. Wish for interest rates to be higher then. That the government policy that's driving this.
> Wish for interest rates to be higher then. Why? There are people on both sides of the interest-rate trade, so any change in rates creates winners and losers. Higher rates aren't inherently "better" than lower rates. Personally, I want LOW rates. I'm young and have a mortgage and car payment. I want cheap money, so that I can put it to use investing in my future. Why should I pay more to subsidize the Baby Boomer's…
A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants
41–50 of 79 posts
Re: A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I wish companies would concentrate on providing value to their customers. Wish for interest rates to be higher then. That the government policy that's driving this.
> Wish for interest rates to be higher then. Why? There are people on both sides of the interest-rate trade, so any change in rates creates winners and losers. Higher rates aren't inherently "better" than lower rates. Personally, I want LOW rates. I'm young and have a mortgage and car payment. I want cheap money, so that I can put it to use investing in my future. Why should I pay more to subsidize the Baby Boomer's…
Your mortgage costs more because interest rates are low, making lending easy, making it easy to take out loans, meaning all the buyers can get bigger loans, meaning you have to bid more to win.
Second order effects. Interests rates are not low in a vacuum.
It is likely that because there's nowhere else to make good returns, there's a lot of money sloshing into stupid non-value-focused dotcoms that will dry up when interest rates go back up, creating competition for those dollars. Again, second order effects. You're not thinking economically if you're not thinking about those.
Re: A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants
#43It 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…
Do "we"?
As I write this, you've got nothing but agreement below you. No angry screeds about how important startups are.
We have an endless stream of mockery about unicorns. You know about the Zenefits, Uber, and Airbnb's issues precisely because you heard about them on HN; hardly the case that they've been hidden.
HN may value entrepreneurs and consider startups at least a valid life style choice, but if you really look, I think the gestalt merely thinks that it glorifies startups... if you look at what is actually being expressed, it's quite harsh on the excesses of the startup world.
It seems to be TechCrunch and such that cheerlead moreso than HN, which is usually being cynical, crotchety, and contrarian about "startups".
Re: A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 u…
Nice comment, you seem to address few of my thoughts on bad products, longevity and customer support. I am a bit concerned though companies don't care about the customer and customer support any more... I wonder if they are counting on peoples laziness on searching and moving to an alternative product/service or is it as simple as there are no alternatives with different policies?
I think the public have got far too accepting of little or no support. Yes it's easy to switch, but most people don't unless it's a commodity service - you have to risk the unknown, maybe migrate years of data with little certainty that support in the new home will be better. Sales support tends to be great (and unscripted from more aware staff).
There's a magic size, let us imagine it at 100 people where nearly all human endeavours become crap. Try getting support out of your electric utility, car maker, government, phone service, national charity, hard drive maker etc. Personally I think it's connected with the size where they will still hurt at, or at least talk about, your loss.
It's certainly possible to get far beyond this size and still give great support - look at Amazon and Apple. Amazon got far beyond that size before starting to become a bit rubbish. Essentially until they started ruining the brand trying to move into food, tablets, 3rd party merchants and everything. Apple have the advantage of their restricted OSX hardware, iOS app store and so on that they have a fairly known quantity to provide support for. I think the key to be in this category is what you think your brand stands for.
I think in many, particularly social spaces, it's easy to forget we're not the customer. eg, you can actually get responsive support out of Google adwords or if you buy a Nexus from them (not always great support, but they answer promptly enough). So we're never getting support for search, G+, Facebook or Twitter. I'm sure there;s scope to do it much better, even for the free services.
Lastly, I think specifically in the startup space when you're aiming for 20% growth a month, or even a quarter is going to make it far more difficult to do well. Especially if your offering is evolving as fast - even your staff will struggle to stay aware. So it becomes about great user stories, and outreach (PR) and devcons. Good for growth, but chances are individual customers get lost in the gaps. I think the tendency to shoot for an IPO or buyout is unhealthy here - individual experience matters less if you don't need to care about ongoing trading profit whilst getting big fast. That said there's plenty of services I don't think would have happened, or be great without being big. Small Spotify doesn't get music licences, small Uber doesn't have availability when you need it, etc.
EDIT: Didn't realise I'd written that much!
Re: A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants
#45This 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.
Re: A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants
#46This 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.
Re: A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants
#47This 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.
I've been doing that a lot, printing to PDF, is it bad? I'm not sure I went as far to go into an "anonymous" account here.
Re: A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants
#48This 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.
Re: A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the problem is when the regulatory body forms an unhealthy relationship with the companies that end up becoming monopolies (regulatory capture, good old fashioned corruption, revolving doors between the two, erc) and discourage new entrants. It's a balance. It's hard.
Yeah, but then people should not be disregarding regulation, they should be asking for the right kind.
Re: A Unicorn Is the Last Thing This Web 2.0 Survivor Wants
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I wish companies would concentrate on providing value to their customers. Wish for interest rates to be higher then. That the government policy that's driving this.
> Wish for interest rates to be higher then. Why? There are people on both sides of the interest-rate trade, so any change in rates creates winners and losers. Higher rates aren't inherently "better" than lower rates. Personally, I want LOW rates. I'm young and have a mortgage and car payment. I want cheap money, so that I can put it to use investing in my future. Why should I pay more to subsidize the Baby Boomer's…
But really, long term, they're the sign of a sick economy. The rate of return of investment across an economy is the interest rate. Think of it like a balance sheet - if the economy is able to expense liabilities at a really low rate, then assets are also expensed at a really low rate.
Stable interest rates are great (across an economy, not individual rates - plus this gets really hard to measure where a banking system isn't the main source of capital, but I digress no more) are great. It allows planning.
Low (real) rates can seem great, but over the long term in a North American/European banking-funding centric economy (i.e. measurable), it indicates low increases on return of capital. And because of the low rates, an economy that is troubled in generating growth. My liability is your asset. If my liability is returning 0.5% real per year, as (real) growth, we're sitting stagnant.
As pointed out by someone else, a low rate also means revenue generating assets have a much higher price. That's because they're returning revenue, not growth.
Low real interest rates are really, really, bad.