3 ms·
I think the point was the lack of success, not smarts.
by Splendor 10y ago
I think the point was the lack of success, not smarts.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- axlprose 10y agoAnd the response was clearly questioning the argument put in favor of that point, thus making the point itself questionable. It's a strange world when a startup that was just founded 2 years ago and is steadily growing [0][1][2], is considered a failure because they haven't already wiped out a 22-year-old goliath that has had a long history of struggling to break even, and operates in several other markets (AWS, Streaming Video, Devices, etc) that aren't this startup's main focus. [0] https://www.snapagency.com/blog/jet-com-vs-amazon-mean-ecommerce/ https://www.snapagency.com/blog/jet-com-vs-amazon-mean-ecomm... [1] https://www.internetretailer.com/2016/04/15/jetcom-predicts-its-sales-will-total-1-billion-may https://www.internetretailer.com/2016/04/15/jetcom-predicts-... [2] http://time.com/money/4337044/jet-com-lowest-prices-amazon-walmart-costco/ http://time.com/money/4337044/jet-com-lowest-prices-amazon-w...
- adevine 10y agoMy question, though, is whether Jet is "losing money on every sale but making it up in volume." That is, your articles mention how jet aims to be about 5% cheaper than Amazon, but they say nothing about the long term cost structure that would let them sell at these cheaper prices and still be profitable.