3 ms·

This reminds me of FoodPanda India, the Indian arm of Samwer Brothers' FoodPanda food delivery service. The app was just a front-end. When customers ordered so

This reminds me of FoodPanda India, the Indian arm of Samwer Brothers' FoodPanda food delivery service. The app was just a front-end. When customers ordered something, people sitting in call-centers would manually order the items at restaurants. There was zero compliance, widespread scams and no checks and balances, all along with minimal technology. Full story for anyone interested: http://www.livemint.com/Companies/rYKC6HjnShogjE62jO5lpK/The-trouble-with-Foodpanda.html http://www.livemint.com/Companies/rYKC6HjnShogjE62jO5lpK/The... I'm becoming more and more cynical of the startup world and the press that makes founders out to be heroes.

brianwawok 11y ago
Startups are supposed to do things that don't scale. Seems a reasonable way to get going..
- ryguytilidie 11y ago
  What? Why would you do something that doesn't scale? This is like the exact opposite goal of a startup...?
  - brianwawok 11y ago
    New around here? http://paulgraham.com/ds.html http://paulgraham.com/ds.html
    - ceejayoz 11y ago
      PG isn't saying "do stuff that won't ever be possible to scale" in that, though.
      - brianwawok 11y ago
        Sure. But if the other providers don't have an API, it may take hiring a bunch of fax machine runners for a few years. Doesn't mean that was the end game plan... especially if they could automate as much of the fax machine running as possible.
  - traviscj 11y ago
    My take: you try to do something that could scale, but maybe doesn't. You might start with something that doesn't scale to explore market fit and figure out whether it's worth genuine automation. Seems like the problem here was either choosing not to or simply not being able to automate their process.
    - brianwawok 11y ago
      My take is prove if it works and gets enough traction before you fuss over how well you scaled. If that meant you had to hire 100 people to fax things for a year or two, that seems reasonable (especially if you aren't losing massive money because of it). I suspect you could still be profitable without automating 100% of selling insurance. Source: Every other insurance agency out there.
- CPLX 11y ago
  Startups are supposed to temporarily do things that don't scale, in the process of building a way solve the same problems at scale.
  - brianwawok 11y ago
    Sure but you have to be careful when you pick that time. If you pick it too soon you stop adding new features and fixing bugs and all that to avoid a little manual work. I think then the time to automate more is can vary.
Erwin 11y ago
That's how TopTable, a UK table reservation site used to work. 10 years ago most restaurants did not have online booking (may be not even a website!), but you could still book through TT -- they'd just call the restaurant on your behalf to confirm and update your account. I believe this was a win/win for the restaurants: a fancy place back then might well have free tables for tomorrow evening but everyone will think they're fully booked. TopTable was eventually acquired by OpenTable (losing lots of its charm in the process).

brianwawok 11y ago

Startups are supposed to do things that don't scale. Seems a reasonable way to get going..

ryguytilidie 11y ago
What? Why would you do something that doesn't scale? This is like the exact opposite goal of a startup...?
- brianwawok 11y ago
  New around here? http://paulgraham.com/ds.html http://paulgraham.com/ds.html
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    PG isn't saying "do stuff that won't ever be possible to scale" in that, though.
    - brianwawok 11y ago
      Sure. But if the other providers don't have an API, it may take hiring a bunch of fax machine runners for a few years. Doesn't mean that was the end game plan... especially if they could automate as much of the fax machine running as possible.
- traviscj 11y ago
  My take: you try to do something that could scale, but maybe doesn't. You might start with something that doesn't scale to explore market fit and figure out whether it's worth genuine automation. Seems like the problem here was either choosing not to or simply not being able to automate their process.
  - brianwawok 11y ago
    My take is prove if it works and gets enough traction before you fuss over how well you scaled. If that meant you had to hire 100 people to fax things for a year or two, that seems reasonable (especially if you aren't losing massive money because of it). I suspect you could still be profitable without automating 100% of selling insurance. Source: Every other insurance agency out there.
CPLX 11y ago
Startups are supposed to temporarily do things that don't scale, in the process of building a way solve the same problems at scale.
- brianwawok 11y ago
  Sure but you have to be careful when you pick that time. If you pick it too soon you stop adding new features and fixing bugs and all that to avoid a little manual work. I think then the time to automate more is can vary.

Erwin 11y ago

That's how TopTable, a UK table reservation site used to work. 10 years ago most restaurants did not have online booking (may be not even a website!), but you could still book through TT -- they'd just call the restaurant on your behalf to confirm and update your account. I believe this was a win/win for the restaurants: a fancy place back then might well have free tables for tomorrow evening but everyone will think they're fully booked. TopTable was eventually acquired by OpenTable (losing lots of its charm in the process).