21–30 of 199 posts
I wonder when this trend of calling companies "tech companies" — just because they happen to use technology — will end. WeWork clearly is a real estate company; Uber is a taxi company with an app; etc.
For WeWork, yes, absolutely. Uber, not so much.
Of course, being dependent on tech doesn't make you a tech company, but I think it's a simple heuristic to quickly falsify the WeWork cases.
I don't disagree with the notion that WeWork is a shady "tech" company but this article is terribly written and hard to follow. I couldn't even make it halfway through. > The thing _begins_ with an epigram: “We dedicate this to the energy of we — greater than any one of us, but inside all of us.” Yeah, every S-1 I have read starts with marketing materials. How is this at all relevant? > I am just going to drop The We…
For the number of engineers they have you'd think they'd have figured out how to build a decent wifi network with some actual security in it. Instead every WeWork has the same password for the wifi (literally a variant on `P@ssw0rd`) and it is super easy to spy on other people's connections. The hilarious thing is they actually built a secure wifi network for their staff, so they clearly recognize the need. They also…
Wifi is largely insecure anyway. You should largely assume that the network is malicious no matter what and just rely on application layer security.
I wonder when this trend of calling companies "tech companies" — just because they happen to use technology — will end. WeWork clearly is a real estate company; Uber is a taxi company with an app; etc.
I think it's the trend of bringing tech to an existing market. When that stops, we'll probably stop calling it tech companies. Uber is the perfect example of a "tech company" - they brought technology (and in this context "tech", arguably, means "the internet") to an industry that was previously dominated by standing on a street and waving down a cab/taxi. However I think it is rather pithy to just call them a taxi c…
I agree this is true of Uber, but is it true of WeWork? It seems like the comparison with Uber just makes WeWork look even less like a tech company.
For the number of engineers they have you'd think they'd have figured out how to build a decent wifi network with some actual security in it. Instead every WeWork has the same password for the wifi (literally a variant on `P@ssw0rd`) and it is super easy to spy on other people's connections. The hilarious thing is they actually built a secure wifi network for their staff, so they clearly recognize the need. They also…
> There are a few reasons to launch an IPO: a big one is to take on new investment. IPOs also let insiders cash out. Before 2019, Adam had not received any equity awards, the documents say. But as The We Company got larger, the board of directors decided to give Adam reason to do an IPO, so Adam received options to purchase more than 42 million shares.
I'm confused. No salary, no equity awards, yet this guy is rich as hell?
I guess cause he still owns what he got as a founder?
For the number of engineers they have you'd think they'd have figured out how to build a decent wifi network with some actual security in it. Instead every WeWork has the same password for the wifi (literally a variant on `P@ssw0rd`) and it is super easy to spy on other people's connections. The hilarious thing is they actually built a secure wifi network for their staff, so they clearly recognize the need. They also…