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

Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 289 posts

Re: Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy

#131

Post by driverdan »

wolco wrote: post #89
fantasticFerret wrote: post #18

I applied to this company right at the beginning of there expansion. The person that interviewed me said he had been sleeping on couches for the last year or so, (around 2017) and working insane hours. They gave me a php coding test to implement some kind of pub/sub. I finished it. Had no real way of submitting it other than emailing it to the interviewer as a zip. The moment the interviewer told me they worked with…

A php stack is the right stack for 2017 or 2019 for a company like Wag. What would a javascript framework offer them? Their core product is connecting people and dogs. A php stack with laravel means they have a working website with authentication on day 1. What would a javascript framework offer them? Emailing tests or documents is very common during the interview process if the company is a startup. Offer them a git…

I downvoted you because there is no "right" stack. All popular languages have good web frameworks. The right one to launch with is the one your team knows the best.

Re: Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy

#132

Post by jdsully »

ashelmire wrote: post #59
maerF0x0 wrote: post #29

These on demand - fulfilled by gig contracting platforms can _only_ provide value if there has been a big technological change that undermines expertise in a job. Uber works because of google maps knowing a faster route than even the 20 year veteran tax driver. There hasn't been a revolutionary technology in dog walking, just people who need cash but dont know pets. There hasnt been a revolutionary technology in groc…

Uber works because of the rider-driver matching, not the routing. Everyone has google maps.

Believe it or not taxi driving used to be a semi-skilled occupation. The test to drive a London black cab is notoriously difficult: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3307245/the-knowledge-taxi-tes...

Re: Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy

#133

Post by throwawaytoday5 »

slimsag wrote: post #62
tempsy wrote: post #60

I think Softbank's main problem is that they fund opportunity without considering execution at all. It's very possible that a dog walking service could be a multibillion opportunity (millennials/gen Z choosing to have pets over kids in greater numbers and working FT), but was there really anything special about this specific team that would lead anyone to believe they could execute with a $300m injection? I don't thi…

But.. they said they are all experts and care about animals! And the founders are super-genius hackers from MIT!

My current org is composed of mostly MS and PHDs (I'd honestly say 60% have graduate degrees), the only thing it convinced me of is that if you're working in my company and went to MIT (or any other good school) something is wrong with you or you're a foreigner who took whatever job was willing to sponsor your green card.

Re: Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy

#134

Post by vageli »

driverdan wrote: post #131
wolco wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A php stack is the right stack for 2017 or 2019 for a company like Wag. What would a javascript framework offer them? Their core product is connecting people and dogs. A php stack with laravel means they have a working website with authentication on day 1. What would a javascript framework offer them? Emailing tests or documents is very common during the interview process if the company is a startup. Offer them a git…

I downvoted you because there is no "right" stack. All popular languages have good web frameworks. The right one to launch with is the one your team knows the best.

> I downvoted you because there is no "right" stack. All popular languages have good web frameworks. The right one to launch with is the one your team knows the best.

Surely there are more appropriate stacks for specific problem domains? Like how using R outside of data analysis is probably weird, or writing your microcontroller code in nodejs is probably a bad idea.

The law of the hammer exists, and if your tasks requires a screwdriver and all you have is a hammer it will be more challenging than need be.

Re: Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy

#135

Post by vageli »

xnyan wrote: post #119
wolco wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ability to find php developers is usually a reason to choose php. It's actually harder to find good js developers. Javascript frameworks work nicely with php acting as an api. An even better approach is a hybrid that allows you to use a framework like Vue/React or a libruary like jQuery but also allows you to use php to power your pages. This gives you the ability to have an spa per section. A common approach is to u…

Hey! New dev honestly trying to learn why PHP matters at all in 2019. Is PHP something I should stop learning JS for? In all my (very limited) experience, PHP does not solve any problem JavaScript can't, and JS is also far more in demand.

> Hey! New dev honestly trying to learn why PHP matters at all in 2019. Is PHP something I should stop learning JS for? In all my (very limited) experience, PHP does not solve any problem JavaScript can't, and JS is also far more in demand.

If the only motivation for learning a language is applicability to the job field, javascript probably will open more doors at this point, depending on your location.

PHP is really great for getting MVPs out the door in my experience, but a productive engineer in any language would likely have the same experience in the language of their choosing. I am by no means a PHP developer though.

Re: Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy

#136

Post by pmiller2 »

thecleaner wrote: post #81
loganfrederick wrote: post #16

What I don't get about the Vision Fund is how so many of its investments lack (pun intended) vision. Other than the ARM, Nvidia, and a few billion in biotech (about $3 billion[1]) investments, so much of the fund has gone into pretty "obvious" traditional startups. If I had a $100 billion fund, I wouldn't be swinging for these singles and doubles (which Uber and WeWork were by the time Softbank got involved, although…

A large part of this vision fund is basically Saudi oil money. These folks realize that oil doesn't have that much future if you think in terms of hundreds of years, so they are looking to diversify. Vision fund is not a tool to be on the cutting edge, its just a means to not be left behind. Hence they let VC market decide which horse is worth backing and then they swing their dollars around to see what happens.

Hundreds of years? There’s a reasonable probability _human civilization_ doesn’t have hundreds of years on this planet.

Re: Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy

#137

Post by nickjj »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #29

These on demand - fulfilled by gig contracting platforms can _only_ provide value if there has been a big technological change that undermines expertise in a job. Uber works because of google maps knowing a faster route than even the 20 year veteran tax driver. There hasn't been a revolutionary technology in dog walking, just people who need cash but dont know pets. There hasnt been a revolutionary technology in groc…

It's interesting you picked grocery shopping as your 2nd example because I do think it's a perfect example. In both cases you are trusting someone with something very very important and in both cases if the person is a lunatic they likely won't get harmed (vs Uber where if they do something crazy like drive off a bridge they run the risk of dying too).

Honestly, I don't think massive platforms are the way to go for such intimate things like dog walking and grocery shopping. I don't have a dog right now but I've had pets in the past. They are your family. Trusting them to a random person on a massive platform seems almost impossibly irresponsible. The same goes with letting a complete stranger shop for your food.

Funny enough I walk around my neighborhood without a dog for a bit of exercise, and have been doing this for years. A number of people who I've talked to over the years have asked me if I would walk their dog for them. I said no simply because I really enjoy not having a schedule for when I walk and I didn't want to be tied into a commitment. But my point is, I think things like dog walking and grocery shopping needs to be a small scale operation where you have a real human connection and trust level with the person doing the work. They have to be a legit friend.

Re: Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy

#138

Post by pmiller2 »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #97
loganfrederick wrote: post #16

What I don't get about the Vision Fund is how so many of its investments lack (pun intended) vision. Other than the ARM, Nvidia, and a few billion in biotech (about $3 billion[1]) investments, so much of the fund has gone into pretty "obvious" traditional startups. If I had a $100 billion fund, I wouldn't be swinging for these singles and doubles (which Uber and WeWork were by the time Softbank got involved, although…

When you have $1M to invest you have a ton of options. When you have $100B to invest, your options are more limited.

I don’t think that’s true. When you have $100B and are hoping to earn a 10x return, your options are limited. $100B is only about 2.5 the size of Harvard University’s endowment, IIRC. You could manage that $100B like an oversized hedge fund and still make money, but probably not 10x returns.

Re: Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy

#139

Post by caseysoftware »

synaesthesisx wrote: post #70
loganfrederick wrote: post #16

What I don't get about the Vision Fund is how so many of its investments lack (pun intended) vision. Other than the ARM, Nvidia, and a few billion in biotech (about $3 billion[1]) investments, so much of the fund has gone into pretty "obvious" traditional startups. If I had a $100 billion fund, I wouldn't be swinging for these singles and doubles (which Uber and WeWork were by the time Softbank got involved, although…

Right - there are incredible cancer immunotherapy and other biotech startups that are on the cusp of HUGE things. Softbank is clearly at a point where it has more capital than sense.

It's easy to be "on the cusp" of major advancements, discoveries, etc. It's something else entirely to actually deliver on them. Everyone believes they'll be the one to discover that new thing that radically changes the world when realistically, no one can plan or estimate when breakthroughs will occur and how they will be applied.

It's the equivalent of the software developers' "I'm 90% done, I just have to.."

Re: Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy

#140

Post by caseysoftware »

codesushi42 wrote: post #77
loganfrederick wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that, but there are biotechs that can get funded on an order of magnitude of tens or hundreds of millions. If the Vision Fund with $100 billion can't make biotech investments work, who could? That's kind of my point; if Vision Fund at scale can't make risky investments work, who could? The only alternatives are the existing profit-machines like Google (Google X) or governments. I am also not the only one with t…

You are missing the point. Do you know anything about this industry? Biotech is not anything like your "traditional" tech companies, they operate in a completely different dynamic. It is not risky in the same way. It can take many years to realize that your proof of concept is a failure, and there's no "pivoting" like in the tech bro world. Are you prepared to realize that after 10 years and many millions of dollars…

I have a good friend who is a cancer researcher and they're 5 years in and think they might be able to commercialize something in another 3. Realistically, they're assuming it will be closer to five.

While I have massive respect for the people with the insight, patience, and understanding to tackle biotech, I can't imagine spending 8-10 years for the hope that maybe you've done something useful.. and then figure out if you can sell it.

Post reply on HN