331–340 of 354 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'll be a sad day when this reference is posted and understood for the last time.
No it won't. The reference is universally misunderstood. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That depends entirely on how you raise the funds. Yes, you can say "Here's the growth rate we'd get without your money - based on that, this investment gets you an ROI of x%." With x% high enough, sure, you can get VC money without too many strings. (Also, reading the Series B post, they were planning to invest - just in organic growth instead of the usual growth hacking) And if you read the Series C post, you'd know…
What is tailscale going to do with GPUs? It's about as far removed from NL interaction as you can get, I really don't see any sane AI fit. Maybe they are using them for AI driven dev work? Probably need to think more laterally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can’t be serious. Lots of businesses easily have that much just in cost of goods or marketing spend. $100M is not such a crazy amount especially considering the cost of hiring technical people. Also note that the benchmark of “efficiency” should be a function of growth, not some absolute standard.
I think we are saying slightly different things. COGS are composed of many smaller capital allocations. According to this untested, pet thesis, putting on a report that $250M was spent on capex is just fine; but if you go to a single vendor and sign a $250M contract, you have wasted money by not being more careful about how that capital is allocated. $100M is _a lot_ of capital, and I think it’s easy to lose sight of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>$6/user/m, but if you want to use ACLs to control anything in a workable way, it jumps 3x to $18/u/m. It's market segmentation, needing ACLs is a sign you're at least an SMB, and to a business of nearly any actual size, the difference between $6/user and $18/user is 0.
Uh I work for an enterprise of tens of thousands of users and $18 a month is not nothing for us. In fact considering the discounts we get at our size that would be so high we'd never consider it. We don't even use windows enterprise for the same reason, we have legacy office 365 plans and lifetime windows licenses without the M365 addons because it saves is a few bucks per head. At our size, a few bucks a head quickl…
This doesn't make sense to me. It shouldn't matter if you are a small company or a large one, a few bucks per person per month is noise. I get trying to leverage scale to get a better price, but if something saves time / money, a company shouldn't refuse it just because they are large. Whoever is gatekeeping these decisions is ultimately eroding the company's value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve had to write “we don’t need the money but are saving for a rainy day” CEO talking points and press releases for companies that were < 90 days from not being able to make payroll.
I guess technically they weren't lying, just holding back on disclosing that they already knew a rainy day was coming and it was coming very soon...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is that smart? I signed up for a Microsoft Account with my email and I can use Microsoft Account to log in to Tail scale but I can't use the email directly? How does the middle man bring anything to the table?
Because then tailscale doesn’t store a username and password for you, so unless microsoft is hacked you won’t be- theoretically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because then tailscale doesn’t store a username and password for you, so unless microsoft is hacked you won’t be- theoretically.
If I have to spin up a keycloak instance (you forgot to say on a public-facing data center that runs 24/7) to use a single service I would usually signup with an email and password, I might as well spin up my private vpn server.
Or use a login system you already have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One gives up a decent amount of control for the first 12m, then a bunch more at 100m. Unless you work there, you frankly have no idea how much control the founders have.
12m? What are you talking about? Tailscale had already raised 115m previously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the tailscale client is open source too
Doesn't that also then make tailscale completely open source?
Their clients for proprietary OSs are at least partly proprietary too.
To be honest I find this all a very reasonable set of compromises. It means I'm comfortable using their proprietary service without feeling like I'm getting locked into a completely closed ecosystem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When they raised the 100M three years ago, I'm pretty sure they said they didn't need it and were saving it for a rainy day (or words to that effect), always seemed very odd at the time. Two q's for anyone who cares to speculate: have they burnt the original investment already? And if not, why would they need more funding? AFAICS there's no real competition in the market place for their product today, the only thing…
You can't raise VC money and save it for a rainy day. If VCs wanted their money in a bank they'd just put it in a bank. If you raise $100M you have to put $100M to work or you'll hear constant shit from your board over it. If they raised $160M they're going to spend $160M on something. My guess would be a lot of enterprise features and product integrations.
of COURSE you can raise money and not use it.