5 ms·
Basically, the critics: "unless you build a 100B company, we are not wrong" I mean, yeah, sure.
by ergocoder 2y ago
Basically, the critics: "unless you build a 100B company, we are not wrong"
I mean, yeah, sure.
- Retric 2y agoIt’s hard to argue a startup succeed until profits > investment.
- rsanek 2y agoif your only measure of success is monetary profit, then sure. i think that shouldn't be the only metric, and in fact, the focus on that so completely is a big part of the problem with what people term "late-stage capitalism"
- Retric 2y agoStart a social club/co-op/non-profit/religion or whatever and the metrics are different. However, when you’re asking for investments your goal better be profit or you’ve just committed fraud.
- scrumper 2y agoI'd say the opposite actually, that the idea that an established company can lose money and still be considered a success is absolutely a hallmark of late-stage capitalism - and not a very healthy one either. (I know Boom isn't gigantic, and of course it's losing money at this stage which is right and proper. However losing money in aviation is extremely easy and so I think we call it a successful business when it's profitable. Today, it's proven itself a successful prototype engineering endeavor.)
- aeturnum 2y agoThis is only true from the point of capital - if a startup changes the world in a way you like it can be a success to you. Profitability brings a certain approval and sustainability, but don't confuse that with your goals in what you are working on.
- Retric 2y agoIt’s fine to have multiple aims, but asking for investments without trying to be profitable is fraud.
- aeturnum 2y agoI think that depends on what you say to the investors!
- TeMPOraL 2y agoSort of. There's a class of startups that's not meant to be profitable, except maybe by happy accident. Many (most?) tech startups are like that now. After all, the investors don't care about creating profitable companies - they just want to make money, which they're positioned to do in many ways. One of them is to help create profitable companies. Another is to help grow companies to be sold to other companies and/or to the public for maximum value, giving the investors back a large multiple of initial investments, after which... they don't care anymore. It's like with modern husbandry: you can make money selling milk, eggs and meat by sustainably raising animals living comfortable lives, but you can make more money by sticking them in cages, pumping them up with antibiotics and optimized fodder, to maximize production rates and minimize costs. The two approaches are inherently incompatible with each other. And I dare to say, modern startup ecosystem kind of entered the era of "factory farming" some time ago now.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Retric 2y agoAiming to build a company to be bought by Microsoft or whoever is still aiming to be profitable, the product is simply the company’s assets (IP, customer list, etc). It’s unsustainable in that the profit is a one time event, but that doesn’t mean you’re not to turn cash into something worth more than what you spent and then sell that thing.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- buran77 2y agoSuccess should be measured against the stated objectives, the promises made to investors, or general positive influence on society. In this case the objective was "supersonic flight in our lifetime. Not just as a private jet, but something most anyone can afford to fly." [0] > Basically, the critics You're being uncharitable and hyperbolizing the criticism to more easily dismiss it. Would you hyperbolize any praise as "identifying another way this won't work is also a success in itself"? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11329286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11329286
- wongarsu 2y agoMy metric for success is simply making more money than they spent. Supersonic planes are already proven technology. We made the Concorde and the Tu-144 in the 70s, and have plenty of supersonic military planes in active service. The assumption was simply that you can't make a profit by selling them as civil aviation planes. That's the assumption Boom is challenging, and to be proven correct they have to turn a profit. And not just an operating profit by selling planes for more than they cost to make but make back the research and development costs as well
- iancmceachern 2y agoNeither of those planes made more money than they cost. The Tu-144 was famously not reasonable at all.
- wongarsu 2y agoHence why everyone thinks supersonic passenger planes are a bad idea. Lots of profitable military supersonic planes, but every existing example of a civilian supersonic plane is only justified as a Cold War dick-measuring contest.
- fastball 2y agoHow do you measure the profitability of military aircraft?
- echoangle 2y agoIf the claim is „we’re going to make supersonic transport available to everyone“, that’s what they chose.