Valley VCs Sit on Cash, Forcing Startups to Dial Back Ambition

Post by kpennell » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 3:52 PM UTC

freyr wrote: post #22

mindcrime wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the somewhat ironic "catch 22" to the whole thing: If you're a startup and you don't take VC funding, then you have the luxury of simply enjoying organic growth and funding expansion by re-investing profits into the company. Well, as long as you can do that in the face of competitive pressure. Strictly speaking, unless it's a "network effect" situation like a social network, you probably don't need to grow fas…

> unless it's a "network effect" situation like a social network, you probably don't need to grow fast. Uber seems like a weird example of this. It was said (and remains said) that they're operating in a winner-take-all space, and they expanded as if they were a social network. Despite the aggressive expansion and marketing, a majority of people I know in the Bay Area now use Lyft exculsively. The last few times I've…

Post by SeoxyS » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 5:20 PM UTC

skuhn wrote: post #87

mindcrime wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always take Lyft over Uber because they actually TELL YOU THE COLOR OF THE CAR on the app. Uber not showing you the color of the drivers car is one of the weirdest UI decisions I can ever remember. Yeah, that's one thing Lyft definitely go right. For the life of me, I can't understand why Uber doesn't do that as well.

It might stem from Uber's roots, since all of the Uber Black cars are by definition black. It is pretty annoying when using their billions of other offerings -- not everyone can spot a particular Honda Civic from two blocks away.

Post by tryitnow » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 6:37 PM UTC

delecti wrote: post #3

It's really weird how this article tries to frame the situation. It's almost like the startups feel entitled to the funding. The point of funding should really be to enable faster growth than they might otherwise have been able to achieve, but if a business can't at least survive without huge influxes of investments then is it really a business that they should be investing in in the first place?

Post by tryitnow » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 6:49 PM UTC

freyr wrote: post #22

mindcrime wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the somewhat ironic "catch 22" to the whole thing: If you're a startup and you don't take VC funding, then you have the luxury of simply enjoying organic growth and funding expansion by re-investing profits into the company. Well, as long as you can do that in the face of competitive pressure. Strictly speaking, unless it's a "network effect" situation like a social network, you probably don't need to grow fas…

> unless it's a "network effect" situation like a social network, you probably don't need to grow fast. Uber seems like a weird example of this. It was said (and remains said) that they're operating in a winner-take-all space, and they expanded as if they were a social network. Despite the aggressive expansion and marketing, a majority of people I know in the Bay Area now use Lyft exculsively. The last few times I've…

Post by elliotec » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 7:39 PM UTC

jonesb6 wrote: post #79

elliotec wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber == Nazi Germany

Despite the comment you replied to having no substance, I honestly wonder if people associate Uber with German and German with something negative.