311–320 of 723 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe name-calling and suggesting they should be mutilated isn't enough. What's your next step?
Having "tattooed on their forehead is a metaphor" tattooed on their forehead?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Once you raise a bunch of VC money you've sold your actual business to vampires. From now on it's grow at any cost. Add bloat, feature creep, unrelated projects, cost increases, and probably user data mining and sales on top of it. How was their rather expensive subscription fee and large subscriber base not sufficient to continue operating profitably?
I’m amused by the large portion of the Hackernews userbase that seems to view venture capital as an absolute evil, given that this is YCombinator’s forum. Can you really not think of any examples where VC capital has improved a company, product, or service?
But rarely improved the product. At best you have a company that does keep it's soul, and continues to improve the product as they would have on their own. Far more often, the product and pricing structure is made worse in the long run through VC investment. It's not necessarily VC interference that is solely to blame, the change in size and scope that tends to come with such investment is a massive hurdle on its own.
Of course, taking VC capital is almost certainly necessary to continue to exist, given you are competing against others who will take that capital and quickly use it to out compete you if you do not. I just view this as unfortunate, when I find companies that grow at a more natural speed to generally create better products.
Are "password storing" tech companies worth a billion or so? And what's the "unique selling point" that stops me switching from one to another?
Looks like another commenter added some context: For some very rough context: - Duo was acquired for $2.35B - Ledger was valued at $1.5B - Dashlane was valued at $1B - Yubico was valued at $600M - LastPass was acquired for $110M - Trezor has an annual revenue of $5M - Authy was acquired after receiving investments of $3.8M
"1Password Has Raised $620M" Ah fuck. They now need to grow at any cost to earn all that money back. And they'll throw their users under the bus, if they have to, because it's either grow like a unicorn or go bust. Also, I sincerely have no clue how a password manager could be so expensive. Last time I checked, the excellent KeePassXC was still free open source and developed by volunteers in their free time. How come…
For a password manager? Damn.
Seems like a lot of people are missing the piece as to probably why they need the money (and where they're pointing the company in the future). Future of 1Password: https://www.future.1password.com/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean... that seems fine? Taking a consumer product and making a business version of it feels like a totally ok way to grow a company that already has a stable product that people like. Them making new features you don't use doesn't mean they're going to break or diminish the stuff you do use. Sure, they could mess it up, but any company or open source project can mess everything up.
I can't remember a company that has served individuals and enterprises simultaeneously without one side getting a compromised offering. One of the things I like about Apple is they don't really pander to the enterprise. They won't turn the business away but you can see it isn't a priority.
Almost everything Apple makes, "Pro" name aside, is either an enterprise offering where they're ok if random consumers buy it, or a consumer item where they don't mind if enterprises buy it. I have no interest in buying a reference monitor that costs more than my last 4 computers put together, but I could just go buy one, I guess.
Optimally, 1Password does the same thing. If companies want to buy their current offering (and my current employer does) that thusfar hasn't really messed with my personal use. If they come out with some Okta competitor in the future, I won't need to care about that either unless my company uses it. Optimistically, both products can be targeted to different markets.
"1Password Has Raised $620M" Ah fuck. They now need to grow at any cost to earn all that money back. And they'll throw their users under the bus, if they have to, because it's either grow like a unicorn or go bust. Also, I sincerely have no clue how a password manager could be so expensive. Last time I checked, the excellent KeePassXC was still free open source and developed by volunteers in their free time. How come…
"KeePassXC was still free open source and developed by volunteers in their free time." This is not a benefit. Within the next 2 years, be wary of a log4j level exploit within Keepassxc. If a software isn't being supported by a steady source of income, it really quickly can get behind in security and tech debt. After all the discussion on here about how we can support open source projects, why is it still a badge of h…
> This is not a benefit.
Parent never claimed this, they were questioning why 1p would possibly need 620m for developing roughly the same value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Once you raise a bunch of VC money you've sold your actual business to vampires. From now on it's grow at any cost. Add bloat, feature creep, unrelated projects, cost increases, and probably user data mining and sales on top of it. How was their rather expensive subscription fee and large subscriber base not sufficient to continue operating profitably?
I’m amused by the large portion of the Hackernews userbase that seems to view venture capital as an absolute evil, given that this is YCombinator’s forum. Can you really not think of any examples where VC capital has improved a company, product, or service?