Live data from Hacker News

The quiet death of Ello's big dreams

waxy.org

181–190 of 264 posts

Re: The quiet death of Ello's big dreams

#181
post #65

Makes me think about how Bluesky is also a Public Benefit Corporation and took $8m in funding.

I mean Bluesky is founded by Jack Dorsey, who made a fortune for shareholders with his last social media company by conning an idiot into paying way above market value for it. Of course it'll be hard to make that particular lightning bolt strike twice, but it's not like he doesn't have a good track record.

Dorsey is not involved anymore; he technically has a board seat, but he deleted his account, and does not appear to care about BlueSky anymore.

Re: The quiet death of Ello's big dreams

#182
post #27

Taking investor money means users will required to pay, one way or another. Without an explicitly capped profit, I can't see how this doesn't eventually lead to exploitation of the users. I would like to see a donation/optional subscription model with tiered features as is seen in Patreon/Kickstarter etc. with the distinction that the tiers are community wide instead of being bound to the individuals donating. Displa…

> Display an income bar. If it drops to zero the servers turn off. If it drops below 1 nobody can post. If it is above 1 you have Direct messaging, above 2 you have more features, etc. Keep the communication clear as to what is being provided and how it is being paid for.

This is a fairly normal way to run old-style forum hosting - I remember forums that would display a bar for "this month's hosting costs" or a "hosting costs are paid until [date], donate now!"

> Without an explicitly capped profit, I can't see how this doesn't eventually lead to exploitation of the users.

I don't see what difference capped profit would make. Exploitation of users doesn't usually happen during the starry-eyed "this is going to be a billion-dollar company" stage, it happens in the "is there anything we can do to keep the lights on for another few months and maybe turn it around" stage.

IMO the problem isn't investment per se, it's debt, in a broad sense: spending money now that you're expected to repay in the future, and then struggling to repay it. There are bootstraped, sustainable organisations operating in this area similar to what you're asking for, e.g. Dreamwidth. But those are never going to be able to "blitzscale" or market themselves to the same extent; marketing almost by definition involves spending money now that you hope to recoup in the future, at which point you've already sown the seeds of your ruin if that future revenue doesn't materialize.

Re: The quiet death of Ello's big dreams

#183
post #170

Excellent, balanced post. We’re at the end of a grand experiment of “you can take VC money and deliver a tech with new values, one that people want.” The only people still claiming you can just haven’t run out of their last funding round… yet. We have 20 years of evidence on what tech businesses can be built on the Internet that make money. It’s narrow and mostly can’t solve the problems that remain. The escape hatch…

Why can't you take VC money and run the business the way you want? They can't force you to do anything. Sure they can pressure you, but if you have ownership and they have a minority stake, you can do what you want. Ello could have stopped at any time. Why did they raise 5 million only 6 months after their first round and another 5 million 6 months after that? What were they spending their money on? I don't see how t…

You can’t raise much VC money with ownership and a majority stake in this climate.

You’re a budding social network. You need corporations to pump money in and you need user growth. Who is running your sales and marketing teams for free?

Twitter hasn’t launched features of note since the Elon takeover that weren’t visibly in development before the takeover. Unless you count an $8 Boolean flag as a meaningful feature.

Re: The quiet death of Ello's big dreams

#184
post #180

No amount of manifestos, bills of rights, public benefit designations, PR campaigns, taking VC funding, not taking VC funding, not selling out or whatever the hell else we want to talk about can make up for one simple fact – a company needs to bring in more money than it costs to run. Ello tried for 8+ years but could not manage to do that. This post is focusing solely on the VC funding aspect and proclaiming it as t…

I often wonder about the long tail of small startups that must exist with minimal operating costs, down to a single VM, Django backend and SQLite database, that are still operating but not recieving updates because their owner is focused on something else, but which still make a hefty profit because of the domain knowledge baked in or something. It seems to me like the sustainable winning combination is domain expertise + moderate programming skills.

Re: The quiet death of Ello's big dreams

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> VC money really seems like the beginning of the end. For a lot of businesses, raising VC money is a mistake because rapid growth just isn't the right strategy. VC is expensive - you give up a lot of equity every round and are betting that your ever shrinking slice will be bigger because the whole pie grew faster. That is a very tough target to hit.

You’d think everyone would understand this by now.

Just one more web boom please, say 4.0 with AI.

Re: The quiet death of Ello's big dreams

#186

I'm a participant in a community that explicitly refuses money from outside its membership. If that means we can't grow fast, or have fancy digs, so be it. The reason for that, is to avoid having influence from outside. Even "angel" investment can be problematic, as the "angel" has the ear of the leadership. I have found that even well-meaning outsiders can have highly destructive influence, because they don't unders…

The issue is that without funding a projects velocity is low and that can frustrate the community. Everyone says they are on board with supporting the little guys, until they hit bugs and start complaining.

Sometimes -- those times when you're breaking entirely new ground with a thing, when you're starting with just a vague vision of where the thing might go -- slow is better. Slow gives you time to understand the effects of what you've already done and the possibilities that affords.

I guess it depends on whether you're looking to achieve something unique and truly new, or just "get rich fast".

Re: The quiet death of Ello's big dreams

#187
>Would things have been different if they hadn’t taken funding? It’s impossible to say. In all likelihood, it never would have been built in the first place.

>But if it had, I doubt it would have ended like this.

If it had I doubt it would have lasted as much.

Re: The quiet death of Ello's big dreams

#188

Excellent, balanced post. We’re at the end of a grand experiment of “you can take VC money and deliver a tech with new values, one that people want.” The only people still claiming you can just haven’t run out of their last funding round… yet. We have 20 years of evidence on what tech businesses can be built on the Internet that make money. It’s narrow and mostly can’t solve the problems that remain. The escape hatch…

YouTube and Hulu did it very successfully. Twitter has just done it in a really stupid way, because their management values politics over the actual business of running a social media platform (moreso now than before, but still very much before)

[deleted]

Re: The quiet death of Ello's big dreams

#189
The article somehow states that money from private equity and venture capital is poison that will kill new companies and harm the public.

I wonder how you can grow a company without outside investors? Either you are a very rich founder or you can try to grow it organically but very slowly. If you attempt to do the later you'll find yourself in a position where is very hard to succeed, moreso if your company doesn't do anything new and the competition has lots of cash to succeed.

If you are in a internet business, you either charge users for the service or sell ads. Until now there's no better proven way to monetize.

If you intend to charge users for the service without selling ads, then you can do it regardless of how the money came to finance the business.

In retrospect, it seems like a bad business prospective from the start, with low potential. Had the potential been better, VC wouldn't force them to sell ads and wouldn't have tried to exit the business so fast.

Post reply on HN