Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 199 posts

Re: WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

#31

Post by unreal37 »

kickopotomus wrote: post #17

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…

I liked the article. And agree with it's premise. Softbank has apparently driven up the valuation of We to $47 billion or so for no apparent reason.

The entire company structure exists to serve the founder. The company even paid $4 million to buy the rights to "We" from him so that they can change their name from WeWork to We.

It will be interesting to watch.

Re: WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

#32

Post by SkyPuncher »

tedivm wrote: post #7

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…

I don't see the issue. The password isn't to protect you against other WeWorkers, it's to exclude people on the outside.

Personally, I think any attempt at them to provide serious security on the shared network would be a really bad idea. It'd make people feel comfortable but somebody would find a hole and suddenly have access to a ton of devices.

If security is an issue, just use a VPN/Wireguard.

Re: WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

#33

Post by wolco »

rootusrootus wrote: post #9
jakelazaroff wrote: post #2

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 agree on WeWork, but Uber is clearly not a taxi company. They're closer to being a mobile app developer, though that still feels like it falls short of an accurate description.

Uber was ride sharing company with some tech. They are a little bit different than a taxi company

Re: WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

#35

Post by SkyPuncher »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #2

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.

It will end when the regulation catches up.

I worked in the gig economy space for two years. Literally, the only reason to be a "tech company" is to claim you simply provide the technology and aren't responsible for how people use it (aka employment law)

Re: WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

#36

Post by kickopotomus »

kccqzy wrote: post #23
kickopotomus wrote: post #17

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…

The org chart was absolutely relevant. It was evidence that the company was structured in an incredible way that's just waiting for disasters to enfold.

I absolutely agree that it is relevant to the discussion but not where/how the author introduced it. The image is just distracting and confusing without any sort of commentary. The author even plainly states that they don't understand it in the caption:

> This is the planned structure for The We Company after its IPO, as it appears in its S-1 form. I’d try to explain it, but I don’t understand what the fuck is happening.

If you don't get it but you want readers to be aware of it then either just link to it or put it at the end after you have made your argument. Don't place it at the beginning before you have even fully explained the premise of the article.

Re: WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

#37

Post by readams »

logfromblammo wrote: post #11

Article author was confused by the org charts and diagrams, but it looked to me like the founders are setting the public company up to be machine for transferring investor money to themselves while maintaining voting control and without delivering any additional value. Can someone better versed in finance explain to me how this is not a blatant flimflam to grab the IPO cash?

The structure of the company is mostly about making sure that Adam Neuman can minimize his tax burden while maximizing his compensation. It's not really about stealing the IPO cash, but on the other hand nobody is better positioned to take advantage of the value generated by the company than Adam Neuman, and you can be sure, based on the history, that the governance of the company will be driven by primarily what is good for Adam.

Re: WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

#38

Post by eof »

Until recently I thought part of WeWork’s allure was they were a real estate play underneath the office value add.

Incredible to me this isn’t the case and they have this type of status. Especially with the recent “exposé” showing the CEO owns some of the buildings WeWork is leasing from.

Re: WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

#39

Post by tedivm »

SkyPuncher wrote: post #32
tedivm wrote: post #7

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…

I don't see the issue. The password isn't to protect you against other WeWorkers, it's to exclude people on the outside. Personally, I think any attempt at them to provide serious security on the shared network would be a really bad idea. It'd make people feel comfortable but somebody would find a hole and suddenly have access to a ton of devices. If security is an issue, just use a VPN/Wireguard.

Your first point is actually part of my point- the fact that they have a single password means excluding people on the outside is basically impossible. If someone has a lease at WeWork but then leaves there's no way to keep them off the network without changing the password for everyone. Since the password is really simple (like, "easy to guess" simple), and since it's possible that people have shared it publicly, their network is not that far away from just being an open wifi network.

And yes, we did setup a VPN for all of our employees to use while we were in the WeWork office. I don't think that changes my point that the WeWork network is not setup well at all.

Re: WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

#40

Post by jrochkind1 »

> I am just going to drop The We Company’s org chart here because it honestly leaves me speechless...

Indeed, I suspect that kind of a weird org chart of inter-related legal entities is pretty typical for a real estate company... because, as the OP suggests, that's really what they are.

Post reply on HN