4 ms·

> We recently acquired the customer and service provider data from Homejoy. That's all you really need to know about FlyMaids and Homejoy. If I ran a startup i

by lemevi 11y ago

> We recently acquired the customer and service provider data from Homejoy. That's all you really need to know about FlyMaids and Homejoy. If I ran a startup into the ground I would never ever betray my customers by selling their data!

brownbat 11y ago
> If I ran a startup into the ground I would never ever betray my customers by selling their data! When you run a business into the ground, some decisions about what you sell get taken over by courts, at the direction of your creditors. When you trust your data with a company, you're not just trusting its ethics, you're trusting its long term viability too.
- 7Figures2Commas 11y ago
  > When you run a business into the ground, some decisions about what you sell get taken over by courts, at the direction of your creditors. This is true, but a lot of this "story" still seems strange, especially in light of the fact that all of the sites that appear to be associated with Cheung's new venture have been taken offline. There are a number of well-funded players in this space, some of which might have an interest in acquiring Homejoy's data. How did the twenty-something co-founder of the failed business come to acquire the data? Did outside investors provide funding for the new venture and its acquisition of the data? Were any of those investors also investors in Homejoy? Why weren't former Homejoy customers simply informed that another company had acquired their information in an honest, transparent fashion (the way most companies handle transactions of this nature)? It's worth pointing out that the email Cheung sent to former Homejoy customers about FlyMaids stated that FlyMaids "work[s] with Homejoy's best cleaners." If that is true, it would appear this new venture is essentially just Homejoy reincarnated, begging questions about Homejoy's liabilities. Assuming the lawsuits against Homejoy haven't settled, I'd imagine the attorneys behind those lawsuits might have an interest in what's going on.
  - karlkatzke 11y ago
    Not to mention the people that the site content was stolen from. To me, this sounds like "As founder, I had access to all of Homejoy's data, so I just took it with me."
    - 7Figures2Commas 11y ago
      The founder says he acquired the data through an assignment for the benefit of creditors. I'm not an expert in ABCs, but my understanding is that the assignee in this process has a fiduciary duty to creditors and therefore must attempt to maximize the liquidation price of the company's assets. So I'm still curious as to how the twenty-something co-founder of the failed business acquired the data. That aside, if we assume the data was acquired appropriately, it makes the questionable behavior[1] all the more baffling. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10468700 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10468700
- sulam 11y ago
  You're trusting that they or their acquirers will honor the contracts that they have with you. In the case of Homejoy, my assumption is that the claims/promises they made constitute a contract with their users that limits their ability to make use of your data outside the described scope. IANAL, but I think there's a reason we don't regularly hear about things like this - it's actually hard to do without getting sued.
  - akshatpradhan 11y ago
    Truth be told, they've probably got more experience than anybody else to make Homejoy 2.0 a much better product.
    - alexqgb 11y ago
      No they don't. Why? Because the two thing you need to run a professional housecleaning service are access to people's houses and their credit card numbers. Maintaining this access demands far more judgement, care, and integrity than Aaron Cheung is ever likely to have.
  - otterley 11y ago
    A contract requires mutual consideration. Whatever someone says in their dying breath doesn't constitute a contract. A last will, perhaps, but not a contract. (To my knowledge, estate law does not apply to corporations.)
    - ihnorton 11y ago
      The consideration provided by HomeJoy's customers was, naturally, payment.
      - otterley 11y ago
        Past consideration is not consideration for a new offer.
- alexqgb 11y ago
  No court or creditor can force you to rip off a competitor's site, only to festoon your version with fake coverage from the New York Times.

by lemevi 11y ago

brownbat 11y ago

> If I ran a startup into the ground I would never ever betray my customers by selling their data! When you run a business into the ground, some decisions about what you sell get taken over by courts, at the direction of your creditors. When you trust your data with a company, you're not just trusting its ethics, you're trusting its long term viability too.

7Figures2Commas 11y ago
> When you run a business into the ground, some decisions about what you sell get taken over by courts, at the direction of your creditors. This is true, but a lot of this "story" still seems strange, especially in light of the fact that all of the sites that appear to be associated with Cheung's new venture have been taken offline. There are a number of well-funded players in this space, some of which might have an interest in acquiring Homejoy's data. How did the twenty-something co-founder of the failed business come to acquire the data? Did outside investors provide funding for the new venture and its acquisition of the data? Were any of those investors also investors in Homejoy? Why weren't former Homejoy customers simply informed that another company had acquired their information in an honest, transparent fashion (the way most companies handle transactions of this nature)? It's worth pointing out that the email Cheung sent to former Homejoy customers about FlyMaids stated that FlyMaids "work[s] with Homejoy's best cleaners." If that is true, it would appear this new venture is essentially just Homejoy reincarnated, begging questions about Homejoy's liabilities. Assuming the lawsuits against Homejoy haven't settled, I'd imagine the attorneys behind those lawsuits might have an interest in what's going on.
- karlkatzke 11y ago
  Not to mention the people that the site content was stolen from. To me, this sounds like "As founder, I had access to all of Homejoy's data, so I just took it with me."
  - 7Figures2Commas 11y ago
    The founder says he acquired the data through an assignment for the benefit of creditors. I'm not an expert in ABCs, but my understanding is that the assignee in this process has a fiduciary duty to creditors and therefore must attempt to maximize the liquidation price of the company's assets. So I'm still curious as to how the twenty-something co-founder of the failed business acquired the data. That aside, if we assume the data was acquired appropriately, it makes the questionable behavior[1] all the more baffling. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10468700 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10468700
sulam 11y ago
You're trusting that they or their acquirers will honor the contracts that they have with you. In the case of Homejoy, my assumption is that the claims/promises they made constitute a contract with their users that limits their ability to make use of your data outside the described scope. IANAL, but I think there's a reason we don't regularly hear about things like this - it's actually hard to do without getting sued.
- akshatpradhan 11y ago
  Truth be told, they've probably got more experience than anybody else to make Homejoy 2.0 a much better product.
  - alexqgb 11y ago
    No they don't. Why? Because the two thing you need to run a professional housecleaning service are access to people's houses and their credit card numbers. Maintaining this access demands far more judgement, care, and integrity than Aaron Cheung is ever likely to have.
- otterley 11y ago
  A contract requires mutual consideration. Whatever someone says in their dying breath doesn't constitute a contract. A last will, perhaps, but not a contract. (To my knowledge, estate law does not apply to corporations.)
  - ihnorton 11y ago
    The consideration provided by HomeJoy's customers was, naturally, payment.
    - otterley 11y ago
      Past consideration is not consideration for a new offer.
alexqgb 11y ago
No court or creditor can force you to rip off a competitor's site, only to festoon your version with fake coverage from the New York Times.