151–160 of 245 posts
Reminds me of VC Fund My Life . It's an index of discounts offered by startups, which you more or less know they're taking a loss on. Clever name. http://www.vcfml.com/
Preferably sorted by reward to effort ratio (e.g., $20 giftcard for a 5 min referral signup with personalcapital.com that you can just cancel after was pretty good).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are misreading the business model. The MoviePass price is per month . There is NO cost per viewing. You could in theory see up to 31 movies for your single $10 payment.
I can't think of a month in which I wanted to see three movies in current release...
PS. Staff at indie theaters tell me that 70-80% of tickets are purchased with Moviepass cards.
Sure Groupon's stock went from $30 to $5, but the company still exists, and is a solid part of the marketplace.
> Enjoy It While You Can I love the conclusion of this article. As someone who has participated in the online "deals" community for 10+ years, I have definitely benefitted from many of the opportunities. However, I do spend a considerable amount of time wondering what will happen when this house of cards comes falling down. But you know, I think that for every one person like me taking advantage of these "arbitrage"…
A SiriusXM subscription comes to mind. Since they care about their subscriber numbers, they are willing to give you the "promotional" price if you ask or threaten to cancel.
> The king of money-losers, of course, is Amazon, which went years without turning a profit. Instead, it plowed billions of dollars back into its business The key difference with Amazon is that Amazon could choose to be profitable at any time- just raise prices ever so slightly, reducing growth in customer demand, and the stop building out its enormous logistics empire and new businesses. Amazon could have had profit…
No, I think the key difference with Amazon is that they aren't losing money on each individual transaction - ie selling everything at a loss. Amazon's non-profits were due to aggressive reinvestment, not pricing.
There is a lot of trust here that Amazon is secretly really profitable not just growing because their profit margins are unsustainably low. It wouldn't be the first time a large company engaged in questionable accounting if it turns out their unit numbers are actually not as good as they claim because of some accounting shenanigans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My economics professor auctioned $1. Someone bought it above par.
The lesson your class was supposed to learn is that people aren't always rational. Did they? (And did your economics class then go on to assume everyone is perfectly rational and understands their own utility functions, anyway?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I think the key difference with Amazon is that they aren't losing money on each individual transaction - ie selling everything at a loss. Amazon's non-profits were due to aggressive reinvestment, not pricing.
This is so suspicious though. Apple somehow managed to become a bigger company by revenue and profit while being profitable most of the way up. There is a lot of trust here that Amazon is secretly really profitable not just growing because their profit margins are unsustainably low. It wouldn't be the first time a large company engaged in questionable accounting if it turns out their unit numbers are actually not as…
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this assessment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wasn't Amazon doing that in their early days, when they didn't have a track record?
Sort of? I mean unlike 99.9% of the first wave of DotCom startups they managed to avoid actually going bankrupt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I think the key difference with Amazon is that they aren't losing money on each individual transaction - ie selling everything at a loss. Amazon's non-profits were due to aggressive reinvestment, not pricing.
This is so suspicious though. Apple somehow managed to become a bigger company by revenue and profit while being profitable most of the way up. There is a lot of trust here that Amazon is secretly really profitable not just growing because their profit margins are unsustainably low. It wouldn't be the first time a large company engaged in questionable accounting if it turns out their unit numbers are actually not as…
It's completely different to retail, which historically has low margins and has to compete with Walmart.
> The king of money-losers, of course, is Amazon, which went years without turning a profit. Instead, it plowed billions of dollars back into its business The key difference with Amazon is that Amazon could choose to be profitable at any time- just raise prices ever so slightly, reducing growth in customer demand, and the stop building out its enormous logistics empire and new businesses. Amazon could have had profit…
Raising prices would solve lots of problems for Amazon. They’d lose some market share, reducing the monopoly accusations. Most likely companies are going to face increasing pressure to do something about inequality levels, so maybe a $5 / hour (hopefully more) pay raise for their 28k a year warehouse workers could also be in the store.
On the other hand, I don't think AWS is the low cost leader for equivalent services. I use AWS because of the breadth of services.