6 ms·

A spam company. Not a terrible analysis. But perhaps what he missed is that the company that figures out how to send email well despite having horrible spammers

by ttul 8y ago

A spam company. Not a terrible analysis. But perhaps what he missed is that the company that figures out how to send email well despite having horrible spammers as customers will make millions.

kolderman 8y ago
What makes you assume YC has no ethical basis for investment?
- abc-xyz 8y ago
  Their expansion to China.
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    Are you using Slack, Uber, Docker etc.? Because if yes, then you're not the most ethical either, as these have investors from Saudi Arabia to the CIA. China is easy to pick on, (and am not saying it shouldn't be picked on), because it is a competitor to the U.S, however if it is such an ethical concern for you, there are earlier partnerships you should be concerned about.
    - abc-xyz 8y ago
      China is easy to pick on because it's the greatest evil the world is facing today. There are plenty of other shitholes around the world, but only China is capable of forcing almost every country and company into their submission. Also, there's a big difference between using a free product and working for a company that supports China/Saudi Arabia/etc. Or in YC's case, bringing billions of dollars worth of investment into a country that sends Muslims to concentration camps, and helping them build a dystopian surveillance state that will force everyone to spread their propaganda and fall in line; while being completely helpless as hundreds of millions of lives are destroyed.. That being said, I do try to avoid using products of unethical companies, and I would resign without a second's hesitation if I found out my company was involved with these evil governments.
      - AsyncAwait 8y ago
        > China is easy to pick on because it's the greatest evil the world is facing today. Not really a big fan of China, but lets be a bit more consistent here. China is in the middle of an empire-building enterprise and like every such enterprise, (UK, Russia, United States), does many awful things. Yet compared to some places in the Middle East, I don't think it's nearly as evil. Certainly not "the greatest evil the world is facing today", (the only way I can see that is if you think U.S. global supremacy is great). Personally, I'd argue the greatest evil the world is facing today is people in power ignoring climate change. > only China is capable of forcing almost every country and company into their submission You must have missed the war in Yemen, as an example. > there's a big difference between using a free product and working for a company that supports China/Saudi Arabia/etc. How so? The products I mentioned are not free software for the most part, by using the product, (even their "free" plan), you're supporting the company China/Saudi Arabia invests in and thus supporting these governments economically. > bringing billions of dollars worth of investment into a country that sends Muslims to concentration camps As I said, that's really a case against empire building and a case I agree with, however it's been done by every empire. Similar things have happened at black sites in Iraq etc. so I think the consistent line to take is to be against investing in any empire in that case, which would include YC's home turf. > I would resign without a second's hesitation if I found out my company was involved with these evil governments That is a great stance, however the cynic in me thinks they probably already are in some way, even if you don't know it.
hannasanarion 8y ago
The purpose of y-combinator is not to make tons of money, neither should that be the default purpose of a company. "Business ethics" is a thing.
- Tomte 8y ago
  Y Combinator does not strike me as particularly concerned with ethics.
- marcus_holmes 8y ago
  Hmm, really? In a capitalist society (such as we live in, like it or not), we express value in money. IF your company isn't making money, is it adding value? If people aren't willing to pay for it, is it actually any use to them? The notable example for this is Facebook. We don't pay for it. Advertisers do. That shows where the value is...
  - bmiller2 8y ago
    Phillip Morris makes money, where’s its value add?
    - marcus_holmes 8y ago
      I smoked for 20 years. I loved driving with a Marlboro Light hanging out of the window. I chose to do that to my body from my own free will, and willingly paid to do it. I'm glad I stopped, but I enjoyed it while I did it. Things that are bad for you can still be valuable. I still willingly buy beer, even though I know it's bad for me. Value isn't what you think it is, if you think that smoking provides no value.
  - nathan_long 8y ago
    > In a capitalist society (such as we live in, like it or not), we express value in money. IF your company isn't making money, is it adding value? Yes, but it's a very imperfect way to capture value. Without legal support, it doesn't account for negative externalities - eg, if your factory saves money by dumping waste into a stream, making people sick (but you don't pay for that). Or your site gets visitors by sending spam, wasting the time of the recipients and everyone who works trying to filter spam (but you don't pay for that). It doesn't account for things consumers don't have the foresight to care about, or don't have options to choose between. Eg companies that manufacture a fridge that will last 10 years and be unrepairable may make more profit than those who would make one that lasts 50 years and be repairable, because they'll sell more product. Planned obsolescence wastes resources, but is profitable. It also doesn't account for the value of things like raising children. If I play for my own children for 2 hours, that's not part of GDP, but if I pay someone else to, it is. And it doesn't account for the fact that people's desires and priorities are warped. Child pimps generate revenue, whereas the social workers rescuing kids from them do not.
tlb 8y ago
I think what we missed is that there would be two tiers of email senders, differentiated by price. There would be $100/MM email senders that would appeal to spammers, and $500/MM senders that would appeal to companies that manage their communications well. They’d have different delivery rates through spam filters. The bottom tier is bad for the world and a low-margin business. The top tier is OK for the world and a profitable business. SendGrid seems to have found the sweet spot.
rhacker 8y ago
I recall Nike was using it.
megy 8y ago
From one spammer to another then.
samstave 8y ago
Myspace Tagged HiFive Friendster Are just some of the social sites whose founders were all spammers. There are more but i forget some.

by ttul 8y ago

A spam company. Not a terrible analysis. But perhaps what he missed is that the company that figures out how to send email well despite having horrible spammers as customers will make millions.

kolderman 8y ago

What makes you assume YC has no ethical basis for investment?

abc-xyz 8y ago
Their expansion to China.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  Are you using Slack, Uber, Docker etc.? Because if yes, then you're not the most ethical either, as these have investors from Saudi Arabia to the CIA. China is easy to pick on, (and am not saying it shouldn't be picked on), because it is a competitor to the U.S, however if it is such an ethical concern for you, there are earlier partnerships you should be concerned about.
  - abc-xyz 8y ago
    China is easy to pick on because it's the greatest evil the world is facing today. There are plenty of other shitholes around the world, but only China is capable of forcing almost every country and company into their submission. Also, there's a big difference between using a free product and working for a company that supports China/Saudi Arabia/etc. Or in YC's case, bringing billions of dollars worth of investment into a country that sends Muslims to concentration camps, and helping them build a dystopian surveillance state that will force everyone to spread their propaganda and fall in line; while being completely helpless as hundreds of millions of lives are destroyed.. That being said, I do try to avoid using products of unethical companies, and I would resign without a second's hesitation if I found out my company was involved with these evil governments.
    - AsyncAwait 8y ago
      > China is easy to pick on because it's the greatest evil the world is facing today. Not really a big fan of China, but lets be a bit more consistent here. China is in the middle of an empire-building enterprise and like every such enterprise, (UK, Russia, United States), does many awful things. Yet compared to some places in the Middle East, I don't think it's nearly as evil. Certainly not "the greatest evil the world is facing today", (the only way I can see that is if you think U.S. global supremacy is great). Personally, I'd argue the greatest evil the world is facing today is people in power ignoring climate change. > only China is capable of forcing almost every country and company into their submission You must have missed the war in Yemen, as an example. > there's a big difference between using a free product and working for a company that supports China/Saudi Arabia/etc. How so? The products I mentioned are not free software for the most part, by using the product, (even their "free" plan), you're supporting the company China/Saudi Arabia invests in and thus supporting these governments economically. > bringing billions of dollars worth of investment into a country that sends Muslims to concentration camps As I said, that's really a case against empire building and a case I agree with, however it's been done by every empire. Similar things have happened at black sites in Iraq etc. so I think the consistent line to take is to be against investing in any empire in that case, which would include YC's home turf. > I would resign without a second's hesitation if I found out my company was involved with these evil governments That is a great stance, however the cynic in me thinks they probably already are in some way, even if you don't know it.

hannasanarion 8y ago

The purpose of y-combinator is not to make tons of money, neither should that be the default purpose of a company. "Business ethics" is a thing.

Tomte 8y ago
Y Combinator does not strike me as particularly concerned with ethics.
marcus_holmes 8y ago
Hmm, really? In a capitalist society (such as we live in, like it or not), we express value in money. IF your company isn't making money, is it adding value? If people aren't willing to pay for it, is it actually any use to them? The notable example for this is Facebook. We don't pay for it. Advertisers do. That shows where the value is...
- bmiller2 8y ago
  Phillip Morris makes money, where’s its value add?
  - marcus_holmes 8y ago
    I smoked for 20 years. I loved driving with a Marlboro Light hanging out of the window. I chose to do that to my body from my own free will, and willingly paid to do it. I'm glad I stopped, but I enjoyed it while I did it. Things that are bad for you can still be valuable. I still willingly buy beer, even though I know it's bad for me. Value isn't what you think it is, if you think that smoking provides no value.
- nathan_long 8y ago
  > In a capitalist society (such as we live in, like it or not), we express value in money. IF your company isn't making money, is it adding value? Yes, but it's a very imperfect way to capture value. Without legal support, it doesn't account for negative externalities - eg, if your factory saves money by dumping waste into a stream, making people sick (but you don't pay for that). Or your site gets visitors by sending spam, wasting the time of the recipients and everyone who works trying to filter spam (but you don't pay for that). It doesn't account for things consumers don't have the foresight to care about, or don't have options to choose between. Eg companies that manufacture a fridge that will last 10 years and be unrepairable may make more profit than those who would make one that lasts 50 years and be repairable, because they'll sell more product. Planned obsolescence wastes resources, but is profitable. It also doesn't account for the value of things like raising children. If I play for my own children for 2 hours, that's not part of GDP, but if I pay someone else to, it is. And it doesn't account for the fact that people's desires and priorities are warped. Child pimps generate revenue, whereas the social workers rescuing kids from them do not.

tlb 8y ago

I think what we missed is that there would be two tiers of email senders, differentiated by price. There would be $100/MM email senders that would appeal to spammers, and $500/MM senders that would appeal to companies that manage their communications well. They’d have different delivery rates through spam filters. The bottom tier is bad for the world and a low-margin business. The top tier is OK for the world and a profitable business. SendGrid seems to have found the sweet spot.

rhacker 8y ago

I recall Nike was using it.

megy 8y ago

From one spammer to another then.

samstave 8y ago

Myspace Tagged HiFive Friendster Are just some of the social sites whose founders were all spammers. There are more but i forget some.