3 ms·
The idea that online is riskier than offline is a joke (competitive yes, but because there is less risk to online). It's easier now than ever before to start a
by Lewisham 15y ago
The idea that online is riskier than offline is a joke (competitive yes, but because there is less risk to online). It's easier now than ever before to start a business, fail, then pivot, pivot, pivot (who even heard of companies pivoting in the 80's). If offline is so easy why isn't hacker news all about opening up a competitor to Wal-Mart? I assume by that comment you probably have never started an offline business.
You read what you wanted to read in that statement, not what I meant. What I meant was: big online companies are vulnerable in a way big offline companies are not. Of course I am not suggesting that Mom and Pop small business is easy. It's not, it's incredibly hard. That's one of the reasons why big offline companies are able to destroy the markets they move in to.
It's no mistake that just a week or so ago pg was asking for applications to YC to disrupt Amazon. pg doesn't fund things he doesn't think have a chance of winning.
- modfodder 15y agoYes, you are correct, I read that differently than you intended. My apologies. Online companies typically are more susceptible to competition. But in Amazon's case, they don't have real competition for the same reason Wal-Mart didn't for so many years, they have the economic power to sell at a loss and/or force their suppliers to sell at little to no profit until their competition withers away. The odds of beating Amazon as a new start-up are about as slim as any rigged casino game. PG will fund it because the payout would be huge, not because the odds are good (imho, as I'm not in the mind of PG).