I mean yeah, but Uber promised us self-driving taxis, but only found profit by delivering takeaways. Meta and Twitter - adverts, and all on the foundation of a zirp economy.
The problem any realistic assessment will have to struggle with is that they did illegal shit, exploited existing loopholes and created a better experience.
Taxis before Uber were a shit show. The worst Uber drive you had would still be aboce median for the pre-Uber taxi experience.
Same goes for finding a place to stay before AirBnB if you wanted anything outside a chain hotel.
That doesn't justify all they did, but it also points out that the market was stuck in a local minimum. Breaking out of that is a successful achievement. (We can debate if it was worth the costs. We can debate if the costs needed to be as high as they are, or if that was an outflow of using VC money. There are many debates to be had).
But "all because illegal" is intellectually irresponsible reductionism.
sorry, you make a great point and I didn't mean to diminish their breakthrough's, but not all of us can allow to not even care about laws in the first place,was my main point.
I'm not impressed with the complexity of Uber as a business, at least not to first order. You could hire out contractors in India to make a ride hailing app for $20k with maybe a 20% chance of success. Before Uber came out I knew people solving much more complex problems like routing a fleet of trucks to refill vending machines. I'd also say making a web site like AirBNB is not difficult at all -- being at ground zero for startups might have gave them a year and a half lead technologically.
Uber, AirBNB and such were really remarkable because they could fight city hall and cartels like taxis and hotels (for better and for worse.) Also those businesses have a huge amount of "dealing with bullshit" in the sense of the Uber driver assaulting a passenger, a passenger assaulting the driver, the people who have a party and trash your apartment, etc. If I'd tried to pitch businesses like that anywhere outside the bay area any investors would be like "are you kidding?"
I think you misunderstand how two-side consumer marketplaces are bootstrapped from a startup perspective. It's not really about cost of development or legal compliance. Initially it's just about getting users on both sides of the marketplace. This can't be done with a complex product, in fact it needs to be dead simple.
Also, it's baffling to me that you consider fleets refilling vending machines to be a harder problem than what Uber did. Sure maybe it's harder in a leetcode sense, but the economics are much easier to reason about, and customer acquisition in B2B vs B2C is much more straightforward. The idea that you could build a random MVP and have 20% chance of success is laughably naive. I estimate thousands of attempts at this (I know of at least 3-4 personally), it's not easy to be Uber (or even Lyft).
I agree with you. My point was that Uber and AirBNB's success was not about technology but rather the attitude about business.
VC leads in the Bay Area because VCs there will get behind high risk/high reward ventures that others won't.
At certain times and places it has been relatively easy to reach consumers. Circa 2001 we got a list of 10,000 emails in a developing country that got a better >20% response rate to join a voice chat service. I saw amazing success stories with SEO. There was a time that companies like King could get games to spread virally on Facebook. Those kind of opportunities have dried up as the gatekeepers have been able to capture more value out of their ecosystems.
But yeah, you're right, marketing is often 100x the work that people think it will be.
Pensions they paid into already over a lifetime of work? So they’re supposed to pay those contributions and have kids (while contributing ~two decades of uncompensated labor per child for more taxpayers to squeeze)? Ponzi gonna ponzi I suppose.
I mean those pensions are typically invested in vehicles that provide growth to keep up with inflation etc, and that growth is largely powered by the workforce who by the time you retire are your kids. Or in your case other people's kids I guess?
It will be interesting to see how quickly generative technologies catches up with this. You could easily imagine a world where you cannot trust anything on screen.
The reason the stock market is down is because of the raging uncertainty of the environment in which businesses have to navigate. Multi-month, let alone multi-year planning has become impossible. Businesses can deal with tariffs, taxes and costs. What they can't deal with is uncertainty.
My absolutely unqualified opinion is that blockchain will survive but won't find much uses apart from those it already has; while the metaverse- or vr usage and contents- will have an explosive growth at some point, especially when mixed with AI generated and rendered worlds- which will be lifelike and almost infinitely flexible. Which btw, is also a great way to spend your time when your job has been replaced by another AI and you have little money for anything else.
If they end up going somewhere? Absolutely, we haven't seen anything out of the crypto universe yet compared to what'll start to happen when the tech is a century old and well understood by the bankers.
Depends on the relative market size for performance factor though. If 90 percent of the market is captured by a 0.14 performance factor then that extra in price could be put towards solving another problem.
reply