5 ms·

The flip side of that coin is that some companies, under pressure to "grow up", become misguided—destroying their core product and user base in the process. I

by rl3 11y ago

The flip side of that coin is that some companies, under pressure to "grow up", become misguided—destroying their core product and user base in the process. I would argue some business models aren't necessarily suited to generating significant or otherwise self-sustaining levels of revenue. However, that doesn't preclude these businesses from being incredibly valuable to larger, more established corporations with sizable cash reserves. Of course, publicly admitting you're building for an exit is tantamount to suicide in the present climate, so it's no wonder the current situation is what it is.

InvisibleCities 11y ago
>The flip side of that coin is that some companies, under pressure to "grow up", become misguided—destroying their core product and user base in the process. If your core "product" is massively unprofitable, it's not really a product at all.
- idibidiart 11y ago
  There is sellability and there is profitability. Two entirely different things, but ultimately that which is sellable will be exploited for financial gains, and often it is pro`fit`able
- rl3 11y ago
  >If your core "product" is massively unprofitable, it's not really a product at all. Tell that to Instagram or Snapchat.
  - austenallred 11y ago
    > Tell that to Instagram or Snapchat. This is no longer true for Instagram. It should generate $595 million in ad revenue this year, and is expected to reach $2.81 Billion in annual ad revenue in 2017. (Remember: this company was purchased for $1 Billion.) So, to recap, Instagram was "massively unprofitable" for five years, after which it started bringing in revenue most easily measured billions. In other words the notion that a product isn't "a product" until it's profitable is farcical.
    - Pizzalover 11y ago
      Citation needed
chetanahuja 11y ago
"However, that doesn't preclude these businesses from being incredibly valuable to larger, more established corporations with sizable cash reserves" A business that's burning 100's of millions a year and has valuations in billions of dollars is rarely going to be "incredibly valuable" to a bigger company.

by rl3 11y ago

InvisibleCities 11y ago

>The flip side of that coin is that some companies, under pressure to "grow up", become misguided—destroying their core product and user base in the process. If your core "product" is massively unprofitable, it's not really a product at all.

idibidiart 11y ago
There is sellability and there is profitability. Two entirely different things, but ultimately that which is sellable will be exploited for financial gains, and often it is pro`fit`able
rl3 11y ago
>If your core "product" is massively unprofitable, it's not really a product at all. Tell that to Instagram or Snapchat.
- austenallred 11y ago
  > Tell that to Instagram or Snapchat. This is no longer true for Instagram. It should generate $595 million in ad revenue this year, and is expected to reach $2.81 Billion in annual ad revenue in 2017. (Remember: this company was purchased for $1 Billion.) So, to recap, Instagram was "massively unprofitable" for five years, after which it started bringing in revenue most easily measured billions. In other words the notion that a product isn't "a product" until it's profitable is farcical.
  - Pizzalover 11y ago
    Citation needed

chetanahuja 11y ago

"However, that doesn't preclude these businesses from being incredibly valuable to larger, more established corporations with sizable cash reserves" A business that's burning 100's of millions a year and has valuations in billions of dollars is rarely going to be "incredibly valuable" to a bigger company.