11–20 of 199 posts
Can someone better versed in finance explain to me how this is not a blatant flimflam to grab the IPO cash?
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 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.
For a long time, tech companies wanted to do everything virtually (apps, cloud, etc) and people NOT from the tech industry had an understanding of the brick & mortar world and harnessed tech to create a boom of some kind.
I think Uber is like that, in that the level of tech needed -- not just an app, but a global infrastructure that has to stay up and takes payments in a lot of countries -- when married with the real world, created a kind of behemoth.
They're also financial structure jockeys, and We is more contracts & funding and not really all that much tech.
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 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 sort of want to agree, but it seems like any software manufacturer is 'a company that uses tech, not a tech company' if you keep going.
WeWork, absolutely though. Honestly, the news to me here is that anyone thought it was or called it a tech company.
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.
> 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 Company’s org chart here because it honestly leaves me speechless
Do not just add random images to your article and not explain or discuss them. The org chart was not even relevant to what you were discussing.
I basically gave up after that because it took the author 4 more paragraphs to even fully state their "soap opera" thesis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I mostly agree with you, but I think what's happening here is reminiscent of the e-commerce vs brick&mortar debates from years ago. Ultimately, Amazon started as an e-commerce business that has a whole ton of brick and mortar capital and infrastructure. For a long time, tech companies wanted to do everything virtually (apps, cloud, etc) and people NOT from the tech industry had an understanding of the brick & mortar…
To play devil's advocate though, that's just the 'back office' updated to replace manual book keeping with automatic software. (Well, 'just'.)
I think we can usefully describe companies as both 'tech-heavy company in the ' and ' company that uses tech' depending where the emphasis should be for a particular sentence.
It just doesn't really mean anything to me alone.
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's a logical extension of the ponzi scheme that exists in the venture capital/startup world in tech. The fact that so many startups fail is irrelevant to the early investors in these companies, as long as you get in at or before Series A you have a good exit 90% of the time. Just force some artificial growth and wait for the next round of investors. Everyone who comes later... not so much. Very few good outcomes. S…
I have an opinion but regardless of it, if a no-asset/no-liability company is losing money and the music stops, they can cut costs and survive. It's messy but it happens.
WeWork is a completely different beast. It's occupancy costs + G&A are 105% of revenue. If it can't sustain its losses with free flowing capital it can't cut long-term liabilities as easily as headcount and perks (again, this is morbid), so its only option would be bankruptcy.
So in this case it would seem that the most rational way to invest in it, if you absolutely had to, would be in its debt. I have to assume, though, given this ridiculous structure, that the opco would be shielded.
Man, we can't predict the future but it's pretty clear that if something does go wrong, it would be an AIG-level mess to unwind the complexities.