5 ms·
Traditionally we would call that a failed business.
by thesuitonym 5y ago
Traditionally we would call that a failed business.
- mrkramer 5y agoInstagram and YouTube were failed businesses? They sold to big companies in order to scale to billions of users and millions of SMBs because they didn't have knowledge nor human and financial resources for such task.
- delecti 5y agoThere's no way to know whether they would have failed without being acquired. That isn't the point being made though.
- TheRealDunkirk 5y agoMaybe if they hadn't scaled to, oh, I don't know, THE ENTIRE PLANET, maybe some MORE companies could come in and build successful businesses in the space, and, hey, maybe even figure out how to federate and interoperate. I know, I know. Crazy talk.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> maybe some MORE companies could come in and build successful businesses in the space This rejects that these businesses required scale to be successful, strengthening the claim that they were not “failed businesses.”
- thesuitonym 5y agoThey only need scale if you accept the premise that they need to be the only provider in that space.
- hotpotamus 5y agoI wonder about youtube - I see people say it still loses money though I don't know if that's true, but if it is, then is it a successful business? It's an amazing feat no doubt, but other than that I don't know what to make of it as a business or a force in the world.
- dfadsadsf 5y agoYoutube is printing money right now as traffic/computers are cheap which was not the case 10 years ago. It's a very successful (multi $B profit) business right now. They reinvest some profits into original content but it's probably peanuts compared to overall profits.
- micromacrofoot 5y agoThey didn't have the knowledge or resources to figure out that they can't indefinitely burn money and needed to sell user data and ads?
- klelatti 5y agoDid Google and FB have to sell to stake to billions of users and millions of SMBs? no!
- tsimionescu 5y agoThey were either failed businesses (if they couldn't have survived at all without becoming a worldwide phenomenon) or they were greedy (if they could have survived, but really just wanted it all). Either way, the acquisition of either should never have been allowed.
- chrisseaton 5y agoIf the business has a value more than you put into it then you haven’t failed.
- Spivak 5y agoProducts that can't be profitable as a standalone business but can be as part of a larger company's portfolio isn't really a useful definition of failed unless you redefine the term.
- Philadelphia 5y agoIf they can’t be profitable as standalone businesses, by definition they’re failing as businesses.
- tsimionescu 5y agoA business can fail even with a good product. There are thousands of startups all over the world every year that can attest to that.