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

231–240 of 289 posts

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

#231

Post by robin_reala »

smnrchrds wrote: post #191
ajmurmann wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s another thing I never got about Saudi’s investments. To me the obvious strategy with all the money would have been to not invest in empty skyscrapers or foreign investments, but pick two or three areas in which you massively bolster research and investment in an area like solar energy. Investment would be local and you try to attract all to talent in the field for both fundamental research as well as to fund c…

Minor nitpick, but UAE (United Arab Emirates) is not the same as Saudi Arabia. It is a neighbouring country.

Not really a minor nitpick.

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

#232

Post by ghaff »

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.

The bubble talk goes back further than that. Lookup The Richter Scales for a fun example.

And yes you’d have mostly been wrong about the Facebooks of the world.

The current generation of money-losing startups is a lot more problematic. And some of the questionable IPOs have already fared pretty badly.

I’d also argue though that I’m not sure most of these companies matter much in the scheme of the larger economy. And probably not even the tech sector relative to the big employers.

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

#233

Post by puranjay »

ghaff wrote: post #229
puranjay wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A business like this that doesn't really rely on technology would be far better run if it was helmed by MBAs with operational experience. This entire business is basically a gigantic spreadsheet where you move things around to optimize profitability. Believing that this is a "tech" startup is where you start to fail. I see so many businesses fail to make this distinction. Stripe is a tech company, as is Boston Dynami…

It’s like pretty much every other one of these market making companies. At a local level—it’s something that people can and do organize with telephones, email, and maybe calendars and spreadsheets. I’m not sure what the advantage of having the same service exist in a bunch of cities is. And you have the usual problem that most people prefer to use individuals they are comfortable with and have maybe been recommended…

I can understand the advantage of a global player in a category like transportation. Being able to Uber anywhere takes a lot of the pain out of traveling.

But things like babysitting or dogwalking don't offer any advantages if they are globally available. You're going to need a dog walker in the same city, the same house, the same neighborhood. Most people would rather just find one walker they like and stick with them

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

#234

Post by hdfbdtbcdg »

tekkk wrote: post #228
hdfbdtbcdg wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> think PHP is a hot mess. Have you used PHP in the last 5 years?

I'm not trying to pick a side here, and I'm sure modern PHP is fantastic with Laravel and all that. But it seems to me that the PHP-advocates are failing to understand that impressions matter a lot to developers. I wouldn't touch PHP with a ten-foot pole if I can. Not because modern PHP is terrible but that the baggage of terrible PHP is still strong in my memory, and I'm not willing the re-evaluate PHP as my choice…

I guess I'm coming from the perspective of having worked on terrible JS (serverside) code bases and then moved to modern PHP... I'm not calling JS a hot mess though. I'm sure there are great JS projects out there. It is really nice to use a framework again though rather than a loose collection of libraries..

> there's a lot more useful things to learn than another language & framework just for its sake.

Agreed.

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

#235

Post by chrisan »

tekkk wrote: post #228
hdfbdtbcdg wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> think PHP is a hot mess. Have you used PHP in the last 5 years?

I'm not trying to pick a side here, and I'm sure modern PHP is fantastic with Laravel and all that. But it seems to me that the PHP-advocates are failing to understand that impressions matter a lot to developers. I wouldn't touch PHP with a ten-foot pole if I can. Not because modern PHP is terrible but that the baggage of terrible PHP is still strong in my memory, and I'm not willing the re-evaluate PHP as my choice…

You might be browsing the internet in an echo chamber. Javascript gets almost as much flak as PHP for the same gobs of terrible Javascript in peoples memories.

Both are old languages and both had years of low quality devs cranking out terrible stuff.

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

#236

Post by pdub123 »

throw313123 wrote: post #203
ajmurmann wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s another thing I never got about Saudi’s investments. To me the obvious strategy with all the money would have been to not invest in empty skyscrapers or foreign investments, but pick two or three areas in which you massively bolster research and investment in an area like solar energy. Investment would be local and you try to attract all to talent in the field for both fundamental research as well as to fund c…

The Saudis have also done that with KAUST; from what I heard they have turned off all their weird laws in this region of SA (like a SEZ), and were hiring aggressively a few years ago (from the US). I occasionally stumble on some interesting projects from this University, but I for one would be very weary of moving to a desert region where women were disallowed from driving until a few years back, and need to be drape…

"in contrast to rich city states like Singapore."

You mention city states in the plural sense.

Tell me-- What other city states would you be referring to? I doubt you have others in mind-- in which case, you shouldn't be speaking in plural in an attempt to exaggerate your argument.

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

#237

Post by philwelch »

pdub123 wrote: post #236
throw313123 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Saudis have also done that with KAUST; from what I heard they have turned off all their weird laws in this region of SA (like a SEZ), and were hiring aggressively a few years ago (from the US). I occasionally stumble on some interesting projects from this University, but I for one would be very weary of moving to a desert region where women were disallowed from driving until a few years back, and need to be drape…

"in contrast to rich city states like Singapore." You mention city states in the plural sense. Tell me-- What other city states would you be referring to? I doubt you have others in mind-- in which case, you shouldn't be speaking in plural in an attempt to exaggerate your argument.

Hong Kong and Monaco?

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

#238

Post by sokoloff »

jpalomaki wrote: post #230
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…

One question is: Why would a promising startup take a $5-20M investment from Vision Fund and not from somebody else? If you are $10M investment in a fund of $100B you won't be getting much support or mind share from your investor. It's not just VCs shopping for companies to invest in. It's also companies thinking from whom to take the money.

Some companies are perfectly happy to take dumb money. It’s still money.

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

#239

Post by hef19898 »

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.

And by following VCs they gave VC backed start-ups a nice alternative to cash out in case IPOs don't look promising enough. I could imagine some VCs are considering that already.

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

#240

Post by Nextgrid »

solidasparagus wrote: post #170
nickjj wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Wag could actually deliver value by charging for finding competent and vetted dog-walkers, so customers would be paying for all the background checks, etc. Instead, they're just a shitty rent-seeking gig economy startup.
Post reply on HN