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

Should we normalize ephemeral businesses?

anu.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 123 posts

Re: Should we normalize ephemeral businesses?

#101

Post by zamnos »

sircastor wrote: post #66

I've been mulling a Crowdfunding project for a while to make a product I have in mind. It is not a big product, not something 'everyone needs', and it doesn't have enough utility or audience to sustain a company around it. I want to make it, and I want to distribute it, but I don't want to operate a business and I don't want to simply give away the thing I made. I want an ephemeral business - something that will last…

I mean, you could just do it without creating an LLC or S or C corp. You don't get any of the legal protections that grants you, but that's up to you.

Re: Should we normalize ephemeral businesses?

#102

Post by bze12 »

I’ve found this idea to be unappreciated; I bet most people think that a business dying means they failed, but in a strict sense a business only failed if it didn’t generate net positive cash over its lifespan. Seems like most businesses would rather reinvest the resources they already have - being in a position of some success makes it easier to find more. Fad toys are a good example: do you cash in on the fad and ride it out smoothly until demand dies, or do you try to parlay into some bigger brand? Popsocket did this pretty successfully, but plenty others probably failed.

All else equal I think a longer term success is more admirable, but many companies end up existing primarily to keep themselves alive. They acquire startups and ride out brand well beyond their useful life. At what point do these companies become net harmful?

Re: Should we normalize ephemeral businesses?

#103

Post by jaclaz »

ianburrell wrote: post #20
nologic01 wrote: post #7

No we shouldn't. In fact we should denormalize a lot of dysfunctional business models, the transactional, excessively financialised, dehumanised business that has become the norm. A business is group of people building things together. Its a family. Its a village. We dont want ephemeral families, we dont want ephemeral communities. What we have is not working (pun). The overall drift of the last decades has led to an…

There are plenty of ephemeral communities that work. There are conferences, conventions, festivals, and sporting events. Lots of them are run by permanent organizations, but many are run by temporary organizations for each event. A good example is science fiction Worldcon where there is permanent org that does selection of place for each year and each con is run by local non-profit. A historical example was trading e…

And attending people travel on foot, sleep in tents, hunt and gather their food while the conventions are held outside in a clearing of the woods or you need something non-ephemeral such as hotels, restaurants, roads, etc.?

The vessel was also (hopefully) non-ephemeral and lasted for many expeditions, but needed repairs, maintenance, etc. and likely its captain and crew were capable of sailing because of the years of experience.

While organizing a convention or a trading expedition can be ephemeral, it is only possible because all the other non-ephemeral and needed businesses exist.

Re: Should we normalize ephemeral businesses?

#104

Post by FredPret »

nologic01 wrote: post #7

No we shouldn't. In fact we should denormalize a lot of dysfunctional business models, the transactional, excessively financialised, dehumanised business that has become the norm. A business is group of people building things together. Its a family. Its a village. We dont want ephemeral families, we dont want ephemeral communities. What we have is not working (pun). The overall drift of the last decades has led to an…

> What we have is not working (pun).

Businesses exist to create profit for the owners, end of story. We have more money than ever before.

Happiness, stability, and security are best found in real families & friends, or elsewhere

Re: Should we normalize ephemeral businesses?

#105

Post by jpmoral »

rcme wrote: post #88
pclmulqdq wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this was intended to be sarcastic, but it is the exception that proves the rule. The big East India Companies (both the Dutch and English ones) only really lasted so long because of governmental charters that granted them valuable monopolies on trade, and they later became models for Standard Oil and other similar monopolistic businesses that really kicked off the era of the perpetual company. However, they we…

"Exception that proves the rule" requires the example to be notable specifically because the example violates the rule. In this case, the East India Company is not notable because it was long-lived.

Yes, and the rule parent initially stated was "Pretty much all businesses used to be basically ephemeral until about 150 years ago".

Re: Should we normalize ephemeral businesses?

#108

Post by mobiuscog »

gourdo wrote: post #72
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #13

Starting a business is really challenging, as anyone who has tried it knows. Trying to make the finances work in something ephemeral is likely even more challenging. In any case, most businesses fail so ephemeral business is sort of the default unless you succeed. There are individual businessmen who ride different business waves (like getting into frozen yogurt a little over a decade ago). But the skill those people…

Starting a VC backed startup is hard. Starting a trade business is orders of magnitude easier, especially right now with a shortage. I helped a friend lease a floor sander and they make almost what I do in tech after a couple years (I took a pay cut for reduced work load; not making FAANG cash) Bought their own floor sander. The VC-tech bubble really screwed up the economics for the majority. Will be great if higher…

If we removed VC backing, the world would be a better place. Sure, less businesses, but they'd exist for tangible reasons, rather than just being short-term vehicles to make VCs richer with no longer-term vision to actually solve problems.

Re: Should we normalize ephemeral businesses?

#109

Post by thelastparadise »

caconym_ wrote: post #98
groby_b wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. There's an entire income/asset range where the former isn't enough to justify passing up the latter. E.g. if you already have $3M+ in the bank, the marginal utility of that extra million is starting to diminish. Now, a roll with a decent chance at $1B sounds much better. And, flip side, if you have almost no money and almost no experience, you might also take the first one - because it leaves you with a 100% ma…

If you have $3M in the bank then you are already a millionaire and the choice as framed above doesn't make sense anymore. It's not a 70% chance of being a millionaire—it's a 100% chance of being one already with a 70% chance of making another million which, as you say, looks a lot different to somebody who already has $3M than to somebody who has < $1M.

I think that's whst he's saying. You're saying what he's saying.

There is no disagreement.

Post reply on HN