4 ms·

I don't get why we always cite Google, Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram as an example of companies that have shown the way. While, those companies are great in the

I don't get why we always cite Google, Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram as an example of companies that have shown the way. While, those companies are great in their work and business, they didn't really start with an aim of providing value but as just-another-side-project. Why do we ignore the thousands of online businesses that might not be raking in billions but are successful by every measure? A reason why I look forward to products like Bare-metrics, and AeroFS. The problem I see with seeing these companies as an example is that most people think around the ideas that they feel good about. It is disappointing that so many people are just driving towards building another photo sharing app or a low margin business.

worik 11y ago
Exactly. It is silly to aim for billions. Aim for making a living by providing a service that some people will pay for. Small percentage of people paying a small fee multiplied by the Internet. The maths works. As more and more people realise that "free" means "costs are hidden" more and more people will start paying small fees for what once was free. It will never be a high percentage, but high enough
mbesto 11y ago
Google and Facebook are cited because they generate an ungodly amount of cashflow/profit and have manage to do it in a smaller timeline than their equally financially regarded counterparts (Google took 15 years to reach that of the revenue that took Coca Cola took 100+ years to reach). I'm curious as to why you consider Baremetrics a success and by what measures? No offense to the guys at Baremetrics (they're product is well executed and I reference their SaaS metrics constantly), but their financial performance is not great [0] given their funding raise and valuation [1]. They're losing more customers than they gain, they're presumably cashflow negative (for a team of 6 engineers at competitive salaries, you're looking at $750k/year cost) and their ARPU/LTV numbers are really low (in relation to their low number of customers). Right now they're getting 10x on revenues, which is crazy high. [0] - https://demo.baremetrics.com/?start_date=2013-11-13&end_date=2015-09-20 https://demo.baremetrics.com/?start_date=2013-11-13&end_date... [1] - https://angel.co/baremetrics https://angel.co/baremetrics

worik 11y ago

Exactly. It is silly to aim for billions. Aim for making a living by providing a service that some people will pay for. Small percentage of people paying a small fee multiplied by the Internet. The maths works. As more and more people realise that "free" means "costs are hidden" more and more people will start paying small fees for what once was free. It will never be a high percentage, but high enough

mbesto 11y ago

Google and Facebook are cited because they generate an ungodly amount of cashflow/profit and have manage to do it in a smaller timeline than their equally financially regarded counterparts (Google took 15 years to reach that of the revenue that took Coca Cola took 100+ years to reach). I'm curious as to why you consider Baremetrics a success and by what measures? No offense to the guys at Baremetrics (they're product is well executed and I reference their SaaS metrics constantly), but their financial performance is not great [0] given their funding raise and valuation [1]. They're losing more customers than they gain, they're presumably cashflow negative (for a team of 6 engineers at competitive salaries, you're looking at $750k/year cost) and their ARPU/LTV numbers are really low (in relation to their low number of customers). Right now they're getting 10x on revenues, which is crazy high. [0] - https://demo.baremetrics.com/?start_date=2013-11-13&end_date=2015-09-20 https://demo.baremetrics.com/?start_date=2013-11-13&end_date... [1] - https://angel.co/baremetrics https://angel.co/baremetrics