433 karma · joined March 27, 2007
It's just perpetuating exploitation over and over again, and damn does that piss me off.
I had written one vaguely similar to yours but ended up not posting it because i was seething with anger.
I just don't understand how so much vitriol continues to bubble up on HN posts like these.
It would be nice if startups could learn lessons that don't directly affect their company, but the lesson probably wouldn't hold as much weight/carry as much significance if they didn't experience it firsthand.
I would love to believe that every startup within a vertical learns lessons from the pioneers that have failed, but sometimes the lessons are in the details that aren't readily available.
I think the fad has since passed and a lot of people have been jumping on the .io bandwagon recently.
This proposition makes a helluva lot of sense.
I have done the hustling/marketing side of a startup. I got my failed (sigh) startup lots of good press and lots of users.
I would venture to say that I probably put in more work than any developer on my team at that point.
Now, I am a hacker but I 100% fully understand the value he is putting down. He will be just as invested in your MVP as you will be. His sole job is something you never have to worry about. Maybe he doesnt hold his end up of the bargain, which may happen. If that does happen, well make sure there is a clause in whatever agreement you sign.
Imagine a scenario where a company is able to cut costs, never over take the market leader and eventually dump the product, support and all (because they can't afford it due to the low cost). Does the consumer, who is still tied to this device, still considered a winner? The argument can be made that the company can then raise the price to try and offset the low cost previously. Sure, they can do that...and if they get caught, they could be called out for predatory pricing.
There are so many ways to compete with an incumbant, and price could be one of them. The only pitfall is the scenario (which has happened time and time again) of hemorrhaging losses because you are solely competing on price.
Competing solely on cost relies on heavy volume being sold in order for it to even provide razor thin margins. The companies will continually lose here because they aren't able to really recoup their investment put into the device.
In my opinion, the consumer only wins when the company wins because of the intangible benefits a company can afford to provide such as support and customer service. Without these, I don't see the consumer winning with companies competing solely based on price. And I think Apple is the perfect example for this (only because I cant think of others). They charge higher than normal for their devices, but they have great support and are willing to bend over backwards to make sure you as a customer are happy.
Just my .02
Their UI is there to provide one purpose, confuse user's into buying stuff. It seems to have worked for the most part.
I think we just need to remember that most people reading HN is not the target audience GoDaddy is looking for (IMO).
Really? I never ever felt that way during undergrad. I interacted with many grad students and every single one seemed more capable than I would ever be at their field (not self deprecating, just a true statement). While I would like to speak on behalf of all MIT students to say that this isn't likely, I can fully see this happening in small social circles. Maybe I got lucky, but I just never really saw this happen or felt that way towards grad students.
While interacting with some Harvard students, I definitely felt like I was the "lower pedigree" though. This is probably due more to the Cambridge rivalry than anything else though.
MIT is a pretty stressful place for grads and undergrads a like. Sometimes social skills aren't necessarily placed at the top of the list when there are many PSets, Exams, and other items above some pecking order ;).
You can even throw LinkedIn into this group (http://blog.programmableweb.com/2012/06/21/linkedin-shuts-do...).
The main aggravation/issue stems from developers wanting to use these APIs to gain access to users without fully qualifying the risks. I could easily be building a fantasy sports app on Facebook thinking, "they won't EVER get into this market. They have much bigger problems to solve." 2 years later, they get into the space and shut me down because I am a competitor.
These "wannabe collaborators" are not trying to improve the experience on said platform. They are trying to gain access to a vast database of users with low barriers of entry and an easy to use(/abuse) marketing channels. It's unfortunate that no one has the foresight into understanding where a company as large as Facebook/LinkedIn/etc may pivot into, but only insiders really have first hand knowledge of this sort of thing.
When the MegaUpload stories begin to blur into politics is when I just stop reading and caring.
The US has something called PCI compliant and I would assume that every other country has something similar but with a different subset of rules.
What's funny/weird about this sentiment is that if Envy Labs/Code School got $2mil+ in funding from an investor I would be totally cool with it and happy for them. The fact that they are crowdfunding while I am a paying customer just rubs me the wrong way.
I don't have much free time on my hands either, but I am still actively going to these events because its how you meet people interested in startups.
In Boston, there are tons of hackfests, and various other entrepreneurial events that can help anyone find a co-founder, I just haven't had any luck yet ;)
Thanks!
Maybe oink just wasn't driving the engagement they wanted (or something).
GoDaddy must have had something either legal or under the table that would benefit them immensely if they supported the bill.
The GoLocal Austin people are awesome and a half :)
Groupon has had success (I won't say massive b/c I can't quantify massive). The reason people are poking holes in their business viability is strictly due to their recent SEC filings for an upcoming IPO. Companies that do well on the stock exchange are those that are able to show profitability. Do some business on the exchange miss on earnings/profit margins? 100%. It is probably a 50/50 coin flip on whether or not a company is going to hit their earnings reports.
Why people are "attacking" Groupon is because of their somewhat odd use of CSOI (which is vastly different from adjusted CSOI).
To run a business that is publicly traded, you have to show that costs are in order so that you can reach probability. Groupon has had somewhat exploding costs to grow quicker than their competitors (fine by me). But using history as an indicator of profitability in the future is what has everyone in a tizzy about Groupon's business viability.
If people have a bad experience with the Groupon at your store, the store gets inflicted with tons of bad reviews due to long lines, long checkout times, etc etc etc. While in theory this sounds like a good problem to have, its not and won't provide a sustainable stream of customers (i.e. majority of these customers come once, have an awful experience because of the aforementioned problems and never come back).
While my sample size is small (~15 biz owners) I saw it first hand at a restaurant in Somerville. My buddies and I stayed for 3 table turns around us. I overheard everyone that was there because of Groupon and every single table had no intention of coming back. They didn't mention the cause, but I am assuming it was slow service because the place had a 1.5 hr wait (normally 15mins).
You have to take into consideration the discount they are required to give as well.
The only way it makes sense is if they are able to get large volume discounts on whatever they are trying to sell.
Just running some #s here. Local clothing ship buys jewelry for $5/piece and marks it up to $15. Groupon takes 75% of the $15. Groupon takes $11.25 out of the $15 and you just lost $.25 on the entire deal (not including expenses to find that piece).
Sure that same retailer could mark the piece up to $20 but groupon takes $15 of that and you break even. A $5 piece probably couldnt be sold for anything higher than $20...
I will agree that it generates foot traffic but most smaller businesses I have talked to who have done a Groupon or thought about it have had negative experiences or choose not to do it because of a scenario similar to the one above I portrayed.
Just my .02
Most local businesses cant afford that and realize it too late.
The company I work for is thegolocalcard.com (won't plug it again on Hacker News...I promise).
One factor that hbr is not mentioning is business owners (national and local) that participate on Groupon, for the most part, are having bad experiences. Obviously this depends on the industry (sky dive plus all around, coffee shops down all around) but not all industries can live off of 25% of their goods sold. I know many local business owners who ran a Groupon and promised themselves that they will never Groupon again because of the poor customer experience, and the large financial loss per Groupon.
The scale part is what worries me. I don't think Amazon needed as much money as Groupon needed to scale which is the biggest worry. At some point, the financial well will dry up on Groupon.
When that happens, I don't know what will become of Groupon. Maybe they should have taken the purported Google deal of a buyout for $6 billion :).
I dont use KISSMetrics so I haven't read up on their ToS or PP. Makes sense though.
AirBnB is probably flailing around trying to figure out what is the best way to get to turn around this month long PR nightmare.
Orphan blog post probably sounded like a brilliant idea, until it hit hacker news and everyone sniffed it out.
Can a court really penalize KISSMetrics when the government asks ISPs to track all of this information anyway? What's the difference between KISSMetrics having this info or a random ISP like Sonic.net?