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

WeWTF, Part Deux

profgalloway.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 126 posts

Re: WeWTF, Part Deux

#31

Post by SilasX »

phyzome wrote: post #28
rzzzt wrote: post #3

The company name should be highlighted in the text somehow; in its current form, it sounds like an eloquent Gollum's internal monologue in my head. I found myself having to re-read quite a few sentences. "We has gone from unicorn to distressed asset"

Similarly, Yahoo insists on being called "Yahoo!" in their branding guidelines, but it just makes the writer look like an idiot. There's no reason you have to stick to the chosen name of a corporation if the chosen name is cutesy and dumb. :-)

Yes, and similarly for Apple’s insistence that you not use “the” with iPhone. (Which Nintendo also did for the Wii.)

Re: WeWTF, Part Deux

#32

Post by SilasX »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #27
rzzzt wrote: post #3

The company name should be highlighted in the text somehow; in its current form, it sounds like an eloquent Gollum's internal monologue in my head. I found myself having to re-read quite a few sentences. "We has gone from unicorn to distressed asset"

Kind of what happens when you name your company something insanely stupid like “We”. And yes I read your last sentence in Gollum’s voice and it was perfect. :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii

Re: WeWTF, Part Deux

#33

Post by pat87 »

DebtDeflation wrote: post #26

>the lines between vision, bullsh*t, and fraud are pretty narrow. I can’t wrap my head around what’s gone on here. Something is wrong. Something stinks. I had a similar thought a few weeks back. If they're willing to cavalierly expose this craziness in the S1, what else is going on there that we don't know about.

It’s not that they’re willing but more like had to.

They need the extra cash from the IPO, and they have to disclose the craziness in the S-1 otherwise it’s plain fraud.

Re: WeWTF, Part Deux

#34

Post by seibelj »

The last WeWork I went into felt super impersonal. If I was to be a solo freelancer, I’d have to work somewhere communal because I hate working at home, but WeWork doesn’t have the vibe of coworking. More like ultra-cubicles where talking to other people is even harder.

Second, there is definitely a question mark on companies that have their main office at WeWork, like “this is temporary until we actually make money”. And as WeWork is forced to charge more, and the glut of office space hits (I see endless cranes over the Boston skyline) it will be not much more expensive to get the real thing.

The long term tenants at WeWork would be satellite offices of a major company, so if company X wanted to move into a new city they would hire sales people and put them into a WeWork for when they aren’t out meeting clients. Otherwise everyone else is temporarily embarrassed while they plan on moving up.

Re: WeWTF, Part Deux

#35

Post by goatinaboat »

mighty_bander wrote: post #14
lordnacho wrote: post #9

Is We a big enough part of vision fund to take it down in some way? Even just as an embarrassing loss? His other two predictions sound plausible.

If there really has been fraud at this scale, and nobody at the Vision fund noticed or cared, the issue is not one of solvency.

We don’t know that they didn’t. They might just not have cared so long as the plan to dump the stock on retail investors and cash out themselves was on track.

Re: WeWTF, Part Deux

#37

Post by big_chungus »

SilasX wrote: post #31
phyzome wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similarly, Yahoo insists on being called "Yahoo!" in their branding guidelines, but it just makes the writer look like an idiot. There's no reason you have to stick to the chosen name of a corporation if the chosen name is cutesy and dumb. :-)

Yes, and similarly for Apple’s insistence that you not use “the” with iPhone. (Which Nintendo also did for the Wii.)

I've noticed this, bht ahve never been sure why. Maybe some marketing guy can offer insight here? I don't see this making a huge difference. It seems as though they want it referred to as a proper noun? I guess maybe it increases significance or something?

Foreigners, does Apple do this in other languages, too?

Re: WeWTF, Part Deux

#38

Post by goatinaboat »

fullshark wrote: post #22
capableweb wrote: post #12

> • Focus on margin expansion vs. growth. We has a differentiated product in the marketplace, and should command a premium. Hm, what exactly does WeWork do that is so unique? Sounds like a regular real estate company except they are targeted towards tech startups.

Brand is worth something. WeWork offices are designed to be appealing to young people (free beer, group activities etc) which makes it appealing to businesses. Also in real estate location, location, location is a differentiator.

Imagine you are CEO of an old fashioned company where people do work and revenue > expenses. You want to buy drinks for your staff. Do you a) put your card behind a local bar at happy hour every Friday or b) in an incredibly roundabout way pay premium rent so your staff can enjoy “free” drinks in the office?

No. Outside of hipster hotspots WeWork makes no sense.

Re: WeWTF, Part Deux

#39

Post by myth_buster »

factorialboy wrote: post #18
JauntTrooper wrote: post #15

This was a really striking sentence: > We've witnessed a halving of journalists since 2008, while the number of corporate communications execs has tripled. In sum, the ratio of bullshit/spin to watchdogs has increased sixfold. I personally know half a dozen former journalists that recently moved over to PR, but I hadn't realized had much of a sea change it's been over the last decade.

> We've witnessed a halving of journalists since 2008, while the number of corporate communications execs has tripled. In sum, the ratio of bullshit/spin to watchdogs has increased sixfold. This assumes that journalists are capable of spotting (and willing to) spin / bullshit in the first place.

Not sure whether trolling.

There has been some very good investigative journalism done in the tech sector. Theranos/Uber/Tumblr comes to mind. Specially from media outlets outside of the SV echo chamber.

Re: WeWTF, Part Deux

#40

Post by eternalny1 »

fullshark wrote: post #22
capableweb wrote: post #12

> • Focus on margin expansion vs. growth. We has a differentiated product in the marketplace, and should command a premium. Hm, what exactly does WeWork do that is so unique? Sounds like a regular real estate company except they are targeted towards tech startups.

Brand is worth something. WeWork offices are designed to be appealing to young people (free beer, group activities etc) which makes it appealing to businesses. Also in real estate location, location, location is a differentiator.

No more free beer:

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/10/31/18049142/wework-bee...

Post reply on HN