Hacker News Reader

Comment by samhuk | Hacker News Reader

In a way I understand why, however I still am always perplexed when a "we are kaput" announcement drowns the message in praise for all the amazing super awesome they have done whilst not including a single character as to why, uh, perhaps the entire company/project/venture is ceasing.

To me, it only communicates that the issues were embarrassing, inconvenient, or otherwise do not shine a good light.

Am I reading too much into this, or does this kind of pithy announcement usually hide skeletons? Genuinely curious here.

View on HN

No knowledge of the specifics here, but usually the underlying cause is the same: we are running out of money, the business model doesn't work, and we don't have enough time, ideas or both to try anything else - at least no with any confidence of success.

I wouldn't expect such a sudden death from "business plan just didn't work out" though. Take Docker for example. Curious. Competition perhaps?

Side-effects of higher interest rates are usually drying up of "easy money" (low-cost loans). Combined with the fact that VCs had a sudden shift (due to the loss of "easy money") and are now actually evaluating whether a startup is actually viable before committing funding to it, it is not surprising that investors demand existing companies that are no longer viable to orderly wind up in order to have some money than the real possibility of losing it all.

Docker is different: it has a name already so it can bleed a lot of money (à la Twitter while it was a public company) and there is generally a significant holding in large enterprises. I'm guessing that Notable didn't have significant notable enterprises using it that will make investors more relaxed with their red sheets.

It's hard to accept something you've poured your life into and had such high hopes for isn't working out. This is why every company that gets bought has an optimistic blog post talking about how they can finally get things done with the support of the acquiring company. They really believe it. They just proved it's nonviable, and they still believe they'll be able to keep trying.

It's not accurate that every company that is acquired is non-viable. For example sometimes it's more about timelines because building your viable business into a different kind of business will take a lot longer than you are up for. Sometimes it's because the principals are more interested in doing something else, etc.

You are assuming it is sudden on the inside, because it was looks that way from the outside. It usually isn't.

Yeah: what's the alternative?

September, 2023 -- Notable.io announces one of its primary investors is pulling out.

October, 2023 -- Notable.io announces it failed to raise as much as it hoped for in its latest fundraising round.

November, 2023 -- Notable.io announces "Oh uh, we're running out of money. Someone come invest in us, quick!"

December, 2023 -- Notable.io is shutting down.

Is it sudden? Most business aren’t advertising the fact they’re slowly failing.

> To me, it only communicates that the issues were embarrassing, inconvenient, or otherwise do not shine a good light.

> Am I reading too much into this, or does this kind of pithy announcement usually hide skeletons? Genuinely curious here.

This line of thinking bothers me. It reads as if you feel like you're owed something from the company. Why does it matter?

If it's fundraising issues, lack of product market fit, founder disputes, team member stole the entire bank account, the end result is the same. They can't run the business. As long as there's a clear message and a path to EOL for active customers, what possible reason could help?

To me, it actually highlights the praise of the team and the products they built together instead of focusing on the details of why they're no longer operable. And reading the other threads here, they did a great job but there simply wasn't large enough captive market.

> It reads as if you feel like you're owed something from the company. Why does it matter?

You paid them money and trusted them with your data. Any usage on your part is an investment in the company. Of course you would feel entitled to know why they are ceasing effective immediately

You paid them money. You got a service. If you bought groceries from a grocery store every week, and one well you showed up to find they were closed, would you feel like you were owed an explanation?

You put in data. They owe you data back.

If you put money in the bank, do you expect to get it back?

yes, agreed.... but we're talking about being owed an explanation - i think you missed that part of this thread.

Yes. But only because the usual routine is worth something to me, and i would be angry about a change that is forced upon me. Getting an explanation is a way to release that anger.

Annoyed I’d understand, but angry? Other people aren’t required to help maintain your routine.

Not an investment, an exchange of goods and services.

I’m not owed explanation if my local gas station closes down and I bought a tank of gas from them the day before.

A subscription is different from a one-off exchange. The expectation is for it to continue.

Tell that to my local newspaper. Most things come to an end at some point.

I would feel like the local newspaper should tell me why they are shutting down, if it wasn't already obvious because they're a newspaper. Wouldn't you?

That's what we're talking about here, not forcing them to stay up somehow.

> Any usage on your part is an investment in the company. Of course you would feel entitled to know why they are ceasing effective immediately

Going with the Steelman path - This is true if I sincerely believed in the company, likely promoted them to others, and was emotionally invested. I definitely would want one. As a shareholder, I would demand one.

Anyway, based on the OP's tone of this thread, I doubt they were emotionally invested let alone a paying customer - but assumptions.

You sure didn't steelman the OP.

They said the explanation is suspicious. That doesn't mean they feel like they are personally owed an explanation.

This best describes my feeling.

Was steelmanning what I quoted which was not the OP.

Yes. Which is bad.

Wait... Why?

The bad part was not steelmanning the OP even a tiny bit, when you're fully familiar with the idea and expectation.

Ah got it. You've got a weird requirement for steelman arguments.

That it's rude to steelman one person while taking the worst interpretation of another person? I don't think that's weird.

“Just because they left a comment saying the explanation was suspicious, nobody would reasonably infer they feel entitled to an explanation.”

Uh-huh

What doesn't make sense about that?

Even if you don't owe me any explanation, if you freely give me a bad one I'm allowed to say there's something weird going on. Especially if you chose to make a fully public post about it.

Read the comment again. "perplexed" "It only communicates" "Am I reading too much into this" "curious". I don't see any implication of being owed more. It's a criticism that the post is not leaving the message that is intended.

It's not the same, but it reminds me of the quote: My "Not involved in human trafficking" T-shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt.

> Why does it matter?

It matters a lot if the team goes on to found some other product that will go away in 3 years.

> It matters a lot if the team goes on to found some other product that will go away in 3 years.

You follow team members' track records and avoid products based on who is there?

Just trying to point out how unrealistic this logic actually plays out. It seems like in general, you'll want to avoid startups or companies less than 5 years old.

I don't avoid startup/business less than 5 years old neither I avoid startup where only a few lower members of failed startup moved there.

I avoid doing business with startup founded by a majority team of a failed startup.

I will do business or avoid doing business with companies based on leadership reputation, yes.

We’re just curious about what happened and we think we could learn from it maybe — was it product market fit, was it unit economics. Lessons in there!! So it would be cool to see more detailed info.

You’re not entitled to see the skeletons. The people shutting down their business owe their customers a notice. They don’t owe the world an exposé of their (possible) flaws.

A business can fail just because it’s the wrong time or they were unlucky or many other reasons. If the issues were embarrassing? They don’t owe you those details.

Right. Maybe the reason they failed is they priced their product too low. Maybe they were too altruistic.

It would be nice to know why some businesses succeed while others fail. If I knew that I guess I would be rich.

They're not asking to see the skeletons. They're trying to figure out if skeletons actually are likely, or if the phrasing is motivated by some weird fear of saying the business model failed and ran out of money. And it's more about this type of announcement in general than this specific business.

Having been around when one of these was written, it could be:

- this is a very difficult time emotionally for the author, so they aren’t thinking entirely rationally

- the author is exhausted

- the author is ashamed/embarrassed about having lost money for all their friends and family

- they don’t want to expose themselves to liability

- the message was vetted by a risk averse lawyer, aka a lawyer

- the message has to satisfy a bunch of different audiences, so it is generic

- it is almost an afterthought amongst all the other stuff that has to get done shutting down the business

And most importantly, they may not explain why the business failed because they don’t really know. If they knew why they didn’t find product market fit, the business wouldn’t have failed.

If they truly know why they failed, that would be valuable information, which they are not required to share with anybody. If you know why something fails it is the mirror image of why something succeeds. Valuable information.

I followed this company since there beginnings out of Netflix. The original founder Michelle Ufford left with no detail and no explanation. I'll bet there's more to dig into.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com