It seems to me quite common in silicon valley (read: Paul Graham) to excuse obvious and continued miscalculations as just "bad bets". Accoridng to one group of people, we should applaud the bets because some pay off and others don't. But it's not like all bets are equal. Not all start ups are equal. Some people are doing something unique and innovative, and some people are doing a crap version of something everyone else already tried and failed.<p>As well as this, there's a whole load of strategy that is specifically designed by startups to minimize wasting resources - fail fast. Building an enormous platform (for which you're being sued) and investing billions before you show it to your customer....well that's going to fail fast. But not really want we meant. And not only do you want to fail fast, but a $10m launch doesn't need to be that successful, if you're launching with billions in investment then you need an absolute home run, and to a large extent that's what happened here. The investment was so big that you needed to immediately capture a top 3 spot in the market.<p>I have a lot of respect for someone who can say "Ok, we see other people exist, and here's why we're different/here's why we'll succeed where they failed". But that wasn't Quibi. Quibi was more "I'm going to spend $2Bn failing where others failed before"