Hacker News Reader

Comment by TeMPOraL | Hacker News Reader

I think part of the problem is that services now start without a way to monetize themselves immediately - they rely on external money reserves to support growth. People get used to getting quality content for free. At some point said services finally need to make money, at which point they fuck up (from the user's point of view) their product, and so the users move to another party who has fresh investor money reserves.

View on HN

You know, I'm actually OK with this in the medium term as a global wealth recycling scheme. Just as many of the private investors who built railways lost their money but gave us a useful network.

We just need to keep promising vast wealth to investors as a result of global dominance while never letting any particular one take the whole cake.

The problem here is that there isn't too much recycling being done. In the process of trying to become profitable companies seem to destroy their products so thoroughly that there isn't much left to salvage by the end.

It's like railway investors deciding that selling off all the metal from the left side of the track is the best way to recoup their losses. By the time that's done, there really isn't much of value left for anyone to pick up and use.

The value isn't just in the final product; it's also present in the paycheques that paid for it etc.

That said, investors will find ways to spend their money regardless (it's in their best interests to do so).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com