51–60 of 132 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now where to get a list of such companies and products to decide what to build...
People constantly moan about their jobs, stupid processes, broken software and tools... listen to them and build something better.
That's why you either get in via very small business (where the owner is the buyer and user) or guerrilla (like Slack et al).
Thanks for writing this! > Housing in Britain is expensive because getting planning permission is difficult. Isn't the real problem that supply is artificially constrained because house prices and the economy are interlinked in a way in a special way in the UK economy, such that the majority of home owners don't want it changed (because more supply == downward pricing pressure) I think the only entity that could mean…
I’ve posted this before, but I think the reason house prices are expensive in the UK is that they are an asset. If the rich can buy that asset and make a return, they will buy it. So price equilibrium is where rents are at an absolute maximum that can be born by tenants. As the price is determined the potential yield, the price then rises as high as possible. Building more houses won’t change this situation until the…
Thanks for writing this! > Housing in Britain is expensive because getting planning permission is difficult. Isn't the real problem that supply is artificially constrained because house prices and the economy are interlinked in a way in a special way in the UK economy, such that the majority of home owners don't want it changed (because more supply == downward pricing pressure) I think the only entity that could mean…
I’ve posted this before, but I think the reason house prices are expensive in the UK is that they are an asset. If the rich can buy that asset and make a return, they will buy it. So price equilibrium is where rents are at an absolute maximum that can be born by tenants. As the price is determined the potential yield, the price then rises as high as possible. Building more houses won’t change this situation until the…
That's wrong though. Building more houses eases this situation as it approaches the number of tenants. It gets better! Better is good!
And the (perceived) appreciation of houses is also part of the asset price, not just the rental income.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve posted this before, but I think the reason house prices are expensive in the UK is that they are an asset. If the rich can buy that asset and make a return, they will buy it. So price equilibrium is where rents are at an absolute maximum that can be born by tenants. As the price is determined the potential yield, the price then rises as high as possible. Building more houses won’t change this situation until the…
>Building more houses won’t change this situation until the number of houses is greater than the number of tenants. That's wrong though. Building more houses eases this situation as it approaches the number of tenants. It gets better! Better is good! And the (perceived) appreciation of houses is also part of the asset price, not just the rental income.
I realize what I'm about to say will get backlash ... but I can't help but think is the time to write this postmortem indicative of how the business was run.
Meaning, who benefits from the output of this postmortem? Seems like mostly strangers (who might not even live in UK).
What other time/effort/resources was spent on things that weren't directly engaging with their customer ... because it seems extremely clear without knowing much about that market that this isn't a technical challenge per se - but a regulatory / social problem and the modest amount of capital they raised won't even scratch the service on solving this problem.
Note: not intending to be negative. It just seems like the elephant in the room is that the team was so ill-prepared and not understanding what actual problem they are solving - that my heart goes out to them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
to those who cry about 'BS' like diversity etc ask yourself if people without the same backgrounds, looks would have been able to raise the same amount without a business model.
The financial world is not equitable, its about results. People from privileged backgrounds are more likely to raise funds because their privilege makes them more likely to succeed. If Being raised in a trailer park raised the odds of a successful exit, you can be sure VC interns would be having business meetings over deep fried Oreos way more often.
I mean, they took on a heck of a problem. At least they tried, but I suspect it was an upward battle from day 0.
A lot of time & effort went into that write-up. I realize what I'm about to say will get backlash ... but I can't help but think is the time to write this postmortem indicative of how the business was run. Meaning, who benefits from the output of this postmortem? Seems like mostly strangers (who might not even live in UK). What other time/effort/resources was spent on things that weren't directly engaging with their…
Stripe hasn't fully fixed online payments but still made a good business of making things better.
At a high level, SaaS to help people filling out planning permission forms sounds like a viable business. Many thousands of people do this as their full time job, so their employers might be willing to pay £100 per user per month on something that makes them more productive.
>> After raising a £744,000 pre-seed round in April 2024, we explored several business models Capital after traction