TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Keeping loss-making giants like WeWork flush with VC cash is killing competition

32 点作者 ekpyrotic超过 1 年前

6 条评论

RansomStark超过 1 年前
warning: cynicism incoming, but...<p>isn&#x27;t this just the VC playbook:<p>1. enter market<p>2. undercut incumbents by burning VC cash<p>3. wait until the incumbents fail<p><pre><code> a. if you&#x27;re getting close to burning all the available cash, sell to an incumbent and try a different market. </code></pre> 5. you are now a de facto monopoly<p><pre><code> a. if you fail to reach monopoly status plan an exit (SPAC) before it all comes crashing down </code></pre> 6. increase prices<p><pre><code> a. if your product is free, harvest more of your customers data </code></pre> 7. keep increasing prices<p><pre><code> a. harvest all the data you can get away with </code></pre> 8. cash out (IPO)
评论 #37122545 未加载
评论 #37120195 未加载
评论 #37121272 未加载
hliyan超过 1 年前
I see a point here:<p>&gt; it seems sensible to recommend that if a start-up raises a certain amount of collective funding, say $1bn, the competition regulator needs to take a look at how that money is being used, and ensure it is not being leveraged to undermine the market.<p>In international trade, I understand this to be the same as the practice called &quot;dumping&quot;.
DuctTapeAI超过 1 年前
That&#x27;s literally the entire point of VC funding. Folks love to talk about the network or advice VCs can give but the real value prop is the ability to operate at questionable&#x2F;negative margins for longer than your competitors.
评论 #37121342 未加载
throwawaysleep超过 1 年前
&gt; If you operated an office business, how could you possibly have competed with this rate of burning money? If you were an ambitious entrepreneur, why would you choose to compete against such a well-funded, absurd competitor?<p>Raise money in a similar way?
评论 #37118740 未加载
SilverBirch超过 1 年前
It seems odd to me to take WeWork as the example - it&#x27;s the <i>worst</i> example. The market worked fine with WeWork, they burned a load of money in a business model that had no moat with no real plan of how they&#x27;d make the business profitable. The business wasn&#x27;t profitable and so it went bankrupt. The interesting thing about WeWork is that they essentially took a silicon valley playbook - which is normally applied to products that have high fixed, low variable costs - and applied it to an industry where their entire costs were variable.<p>I don&#x27;t see why you would try to solve this problem on the front end. It is perfectly fine for WeWork or Uber to throw money at customers and give the average consumer a free lunch. What is failing is on the back end. The whole premise of these business models is &quot;If we get to monopoly scale, we&#x27;re going to exploit our monopoly&quot;. But... we already know monopolies are bad, there&#x27;s nothing unique to start ups here. The simple answer is just enforce monopoly law. If it turns out that Uber has a huge market share and is using that to price gouge then step in with anti-monopoly laws.<p>I think the closest thing you can come to this being a start up thing is the Softbank model, where Softbank owns stakes in so many different players in a single market that they effectively are operating a cartel.<p>What you really want is a healthy market regulator that tackles monopolies so that Venture Capitalists don&#x27;t think &quot;Grow this until we can exploit our monopoly&quot; is a good strategy.
评论 #37119628 未加载
kgbcia超过 1 年前
Isn&#x27;t that the point