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

We haven’t failed, but successfully shown it doesn’t work

thenextweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–18 of 18 posts

Re: We haven’t failed, but successfully shown it doesn’t work

#11

Post by peteretep »

wccrawford wrote: post #2

This whole 'we didn't fail' thing is just feel-good nonsense. While they did indeed 'show that it doesn't work', they failed to create a company, and they failed to produce money for their investors. Those investors aren't saying 'Well, that was money well spent.' They are saying 'That was a failure.' The fact that they are willing to invest again is a tribute to the company's handling of the situation and apparently…

I feel like the message here isn't so much a failure to accept failure, but more of an early, total acceptance that they were failing and allowing that insight to stop them wasting more money, rather than holding on for dear life...

Re: We haven’t failed, but successfully shown it doesn’t work

#12

Post by bad_user »

wccrawford wrote: post #2

This whole 'we didn't fail' thing is just feel-good nonsense. While they did indeed 'show that it doesn't work', they failed to create a company, and they failed to produce money for their investors. Those investors aren't saying 'Well, that was money well spent.' They are saying 'That was a failure.' The fact that they are willing to invest again is a tribute to the company's handling of the situation and apparently…

The investors got more than 50% of their investment back; this doesn't happen very often with failures.

    They are saying 'That was a failure.'
But there are lots of failures of lots of startups and as an investor you're betting on a few winnings among lots of loses. Investors may actually be happy with this outcome simply because it could have been a lot worse.

Re: We haven’t failed, but successfully shown it doesn’t work

#13

Post by Wilya »

I find it a little bit strange that they didn't realize their solution didn't work before lauching and getting funding.

A business idea, or a consumer product can fail or succeed depending on many parameters. But a spam filter is a technical part. There are metrics that can clearly tell you whether it works or not.

Re: We haven’t failed, but successfully shown it doesn’t work

#14

Post by Hisoka »

wccrawford wrote: post #2

This whole 'we didn't fail' thing is just feel-good nonsense. While they did indeed 'show that it doesn't work', they failed to create a company, and they failed to produce money for their investors. Those investors aren't saying 'Well, that was money well spent.' They are saying 'That was a failure.' The fact that they are willing to invest again is a tribute to the company's handling of the situation and apparently…

But focusing on the negative really isn't constructive and will only lead to bitterness. Looking on the positive side helps you get back up and try again.

Re: We haven’t failed, but successfully shown it doesn’t work

#17

Post by petervandijck »

BorisBomega wrote: post #5
petervandijck wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how is that not failing?

When you fall you've failed at walking. But we all know that this is part of learning to walk. We can focus on the fail or on the process or learning. You obviously only see the fail.

When people invest money in you and you shut down the company with half the money gone, you've failed.

Sometimes it's that simple.

Re: We haven’t failed, but successfully shown it doesn’t work

#18

Post by petervandijck »

bad_user wrote: post #12
wccrawford wrote: post #2

This whole 'we didn't fail' thing is just feel-good nonsense. While they did indeed 'show that it doesn't work', they failed to create a company, and they failed to produce money for their investors. Those investors aren't saying 'Well, that was money well spent.' They are saying 'That was a failure.' The fact that they are willing to invest again is a tribute to the company's handling of the situation and apparently…

The investors got more than 50% of their investment back; this doesn't happen very often with failures. They are saying 'That was a failure.' But there are lots of failures of lots of startups and as an investor you're betting on a few winnings among lots of loses. Investors may actually be happy with this outcome simply because it could have been a lot worse.

"Investors may actually be happy with this outcome simply because it could have been a lot worse."

-> kill me right now.

They failed. Come on.

Post reply on HN