3 ms·

To me your Yahoo example seems to prove the opposite of your point - growth stalled and yet it didn't die. It not only employs thousands of people but also earn

To me your Yahoo example seems to prove the opposite of your point - growth stalled and yet it didn't die. It not only employs thousands of people but also earns billions in profit.

jacques_chester 11y ago
It doesn't get much press, so in the metric that counts (VC availability bias), Yahoo died. Microsoft's corpse has similarly been squirting billions of dollars of profit through its several layers of tombstones for decades now.
- scrollaway 11y ago
  Confusion arises because who gets to say that's the metric that counts? What are your criteria for a business to be considered alive and healthy? Why are those your criteria? Growth is not inherently positive, it depends on context. For example, if I tell you my cancer has grown 500% this year, it wouldn't be good news. And before you say this is a stretched analogy, it's not necessarily positive in tech either - if you're growing while bleeding money, all you're doing is bleeding more money. So how do you reach your conclusions?
  - dvanduzer 11y ago
    Confusion arises for a lot of reasons, but cancer definitely isn't a useful analogy to discuss a blog post that starts "Most high-growth businesses..." It's definitely the metric that counts for the kinds of businesses Andreessen Horowitz cares about. Microsoft and Yahoo are particularly confusing examples, because they are both very large companies who enjoyed a lot of first mover advantage, but were started almost 20 years apart. And then ended up as very direct competition, before settling down as symbiotic partners. If you really want to use an example from biology, you should look at gut bacteria.
adevine 11y ago
Billions in profit? You are sorely mistaken: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=YHOO+Income+Statement http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=YHOO+Income+Statement . For years, Yahoo was propped up by it's stake in Alibaba and Yahoo Japan. In fact, the core business was valued at less than zero at one point: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/is-yahoo-really-worthless-without-alibaba-2015-01-29 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/is-yahoo-really-worthless-w... Make no mistake, while Yahoo hasn't died YET, that is exactly where it's trajectory points unless it is able to significantly grow revenues in its core business.
pbreit 11y ago
First, it has billions in sales, not profit. But I think it's a good example of a company that makes a lot of sales and profits but because it's not growing like some of its peers is considered a zombie or lame duck. It's the 3rd largest in traffic after all!

To me your Yahoo example seems to prove the opposite of your point - growth stalled and yet it didn't die. It not only employs thousands of people but also earns billions in profit.

jacques_chester 11y ago

It doesn't get much press, so in the metric that counts (VC availability bias), Yahoo died. Microsoft's corpse has similarly been squirting billions of dollars of profit through its several layers of tombstones for decades now.

scrollaway 11y ago
Confusion arises because who gets to say that's the metric that counts? What are your criteria for a business to be considered alive and healthy? Why are those your criteria? Growth is not inherently positive, it depends on context. For example, if I tell you my cancer has grown 500% this year, it wouldn't be good news. And before you say this is a stretched analogy, it's not necessarily positive in tech either - if you're growing while bleeding money, all you're doing is bleeding more money. So how do you reach your conclusions?
- dvanduzer 11y ago
  Confusion arises for a lot of reasons, but cancer definitely isn't a useful analogy to discuss a blog post that starts "Most high-growth businesses..." It's definitely the metric that counts for the kinds of businesses Andreessen Horowitz cares about. Microsoft and Yahoo are particularly confusing examples, because they are both very large companies who enjoyed a lot of first mover advantage, but were started almost 20 years apart. And then ended up as very direct competition, before settling down as symbiotic partners. If you really want to use an example from biology, you should look at gut bacteria.

adevine 11y ago

Billions in profit? You are sorely mistaken: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=YHOO+Income+Statement http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=YHOO+Income+Statement . For years, Yahoo was propped up by it's stake in Alibaba and Yahoo Japan. In fact, the core business was valued at less than zero at one point: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/is-yahoo-really-worthless-without-alibaba-2015-01-29 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/is-yahoo-really-worthless-w... Make no mistake, while Yahoo hasn't died YET, that is exactly where it's trajectory points unless it is able to significantly grow revenues in its core business.

pbreit 11y ago

First, it has billions in sales, not profit. But I think it's a good example of a company that makes a lot of sales and profits but because it's not growing like some of its peers is considered a zombie or lame duck. It's the 3rd largest in traffic after all!