Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by solidasparagus » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 1:55 AM UTC

drstewart wrote: post #69

velox_io wrote: post #57

Reading the title has affirmed to me that we are living in a bubble (and it doesn't look good). I just can't get it through my head how an investment of that size will EVER pay off. A major reason people buy dogs is because they want to get out and walk more. If they can't they outsource it to a teenager you or your friends know, there's no need for a middleman in most cases. (If it was baby-sitting I could understan…

People have been "sure" there's a bubble for a decade now. I mean take this HN article, posted Apr 19, 2012: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3865744 How much are you investing on your suredness that there's a bubble? Because if you did it in 2012, you'd be down about 70% right now.

It's important to remember that unsustainable things can last longer than you anticipate. I firmly believe the bubble will burst (a bit, there's too much real value for a collapse), but I have no idea if it will be tomorrow or if it will be a decade from now.

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

#162

Post by bontaq » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 1:55 AM UTC

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 don't think your point makes sense. Obviously venture capital exists for biotech. Since the vision fund lost a bunch of money on safer bets, it would've been better if they lost it on risky biotech bets.

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

#163

Post by xenospn » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 1:57 AM UTC

jejunebug wrote: post #104

I used to work at Wag a for a few months, leaving shortly after the new CEO was brought on and they received the SoftBank investment. The fact that things got worse since then is not surprising. Management was already pretty disorganized, they were bad at managing funds (the salary discrepancies were very real), and putting it mildly it was just an unpleasant place to be. There was a staggering amount of turnover, es…

To be fair, I'm shocked that so many people trust strangers to walk their dogs. That's insanity and no wonder they get so much hate press. Unsustainable and we're just a few escaped/dead/stolen dogs away from them imploding completely.

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

#164

Post by sedachv » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 2:01 AM UTC

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…

> Had no real way of submitting it other than emailing it to the interviewer as a zip.

Being good at email (ex: not relying on GMail, knowing basic things about line length, top-posting, signature, having your own domain(s), using an actual email client instead of webmail crap, Sieve filters and mailing list management, actually knowing how mailing-list based development works and being able to use (git) patch/diff, bonus points for offline syncing, 2x bonus for using a text client (3x bonus for xmh), 10x bonus for running your own server(s)) is a way better indicator of technical competency than the ability to sign up for a GitHub account and click a few buttons.

HTML email is a huge red flag for programmers.

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

#165

Post by codesushi42 » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 2:02 AM UTC

bontaq wrote: post #162

codesushi42 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 don't think your point makes sense. Obviously venture capital exists for biotech. Since the vision fund lost a bunch of money on safer bets, it would've been better if they lost it on risky biotech bets.

Huh? I guess if they had a crystal ball.

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

#166

Post by petra » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 2:02 AM UTC

CalChris wrote: post #150

pdq wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem when you have so much money to invest is that your customers need to actually invest it. It's much harder to invest $1-$5M at a time when you can just go back to the WeWork pool and drop $2B. It's like painting a wall mural using fine tipped brushes, rather than wide paint rollers or a paint gun. You get the job done so much faster, but your quality will suffer tremendously.

$100B is not that much money. (Note to self: you just said $100B isn't that much money. Get head examined.) Bezos can aggressively handle it. Gates aggressively can handle it. Buffett can aggressively it. What is so special about the Vision Fund that it wants to put its money in the likes of Uber and WeWork? I would think knowledgable VCs would do their due diligence and avoid these companies. Investing into Uber at…

Buffet is sitting on $120B of cash: https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/warren-buffett-has-a-122-bill...

Bezos isn't a VC, he owns the greatest demand engine the world has ever known, and that matters when spending money.

And Gates ? he deals, smartly, with much lower sums. His energy VC is for example, has $1B.

It's not so easy spending $40B-$50B in 3 years, like the vision fund did.

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

#167

Post by fragmede » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 2:04 AM UTC

nemothekid wrote: post #93

loganfrederick wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I get that and my post was kind of an implicit difference between what they "are" versus what I think they "ought to be" (admittedly easier to be in my armchair investor seat than Softbank's). But their returns from Uber, WeWork, and Wag kind of support my point, whereas ARM and Nvidia support yours/theirs. My broader point is that most informed technologists would've said three years ago that the ARM and Nvidi…

I’m unsure the point of the vision fund was to make safe long term bets. At the end of the day, it’s unclear to me how nvidia would use an extra 10B dollars - other than pour that into R&D (in which case does that really cost $10B - and if your thesis is R&D, universities tend to do a better job anyways). The thesis for Uber (and wework) was simpler - assuming they had sound unit economics, give them $XB to repeat al…

University R&D IP tends to be owned by universities that it's developed at - Google's PageRank patent was owned by Stanford. Investing directly in universities won't have the desired payout.

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

#168

Post by pmiller2 » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 2:04 AM UTC

mypalmike wrote: post #159

pmiller2 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can say that: fusion is objectively better than fossil fuels because it’s a sustainable source of energy that doesn’t destroy future generations’ prospects for a decent life. If you were to calculate the real costs of fossil fuels, including the effects on climate, I’m sure fusion comes out ahead. We don’t consider those costs typically, so we’re effectively externalizing them onto future generations.

It's hard to say a hypothetical energy source (commercially-viable fusion) is objectively better than one that actually exists.

A hypothetical, completely clean energy source is objectively better than one that emits greenhouse gasses, on its face.

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

#169

Post by pmiller2 » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 2:05 AM UTC

james_s_tayler wrote: post #156

pmiller2 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I've noticed that assumption is heavily baked in everywhere you look. I'll bet after the hundreds of thousands of years we have made it so far, humanity, in one form or another, will continue to persist.

I didn’t say “humanity.” I said “human civilization.” I do think there’s hope for humanity, but I’m a lot more bearish about civilization.

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

#170

Post by solidasparagus » Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 2:10 AM UTC

nickjj wrote: post #137

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 s…

Agreed. On-demand dogwalking is just an awful idea IMO. You absolutely have to build a relationship with your dogwalker and there's no reason to keep Wag in the loop once that relationship is built.

Not to mention that at scale, dogs are going to die/get lost no matter what you do, so there's a ton of risk in having a single brand that owners don't have a strong personal relationship with. I think whitelabeling the tech and then reaching customers via local brands makes a lot more sense.

I don't think food is nearly as bad. The worst you can do without malice is buy shitty food.