4 ms·
> I wonder if these food delivery and ride sharing companies are even sustainable. Then reports they use VC money to subsidize things. They're not, they're all
by m_ke 7y ago
> I wonder if these food delivery and ride sharing companies are even sustainable. Then reports they use VC money to subsidize things.
They're not, they're all following Thiel's 0 to 1 model and aiming for a monopoly. Over the past 10 year VCs figured out that getting into capital intensive markets where they can use their money to starve out the competition is an easier way to make money than investing in sustainable businesses. They get to raise insane rounds, throw a lot of money around and live off of the management fees.
- toss1 7y ago> I wonder if these food delivery and ride sharing companies are even sustainable. Then reports they use VC money to subsidize things. >They're not, they're all following Thiel's 0 to 1 model and aiming for a monopoly. Not only trying to gain a monopoly via massive market manipulation, i.e., bonfire of VC capital to sustain dumping of underpriced product for years, but also skimming & scamming as a business model for those years The last decade is making a real mockery of the Vc investing model to create value --many big ones are just trying to strip-mine the economy. Sure taxis/limos needed a better app-based UI, and perhaps delivery apps are more convenient, but this is not providing a new better service, it is simply trying to steal from the restaurant's profits