Remix clone Hacker News

> Revenue != profit

And for over a decade most companies talk only about revenue, which is infuriating. Because most startups and tech darlings survive only by continuous infusion of unlimited investor money.

▲

inglor 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

I worked for 4 startups that were operating for years at a loss with revenue, all are profitable today and all were acquired.

My current startup is also not profitable, we're burning money but we're already signing big contracts and I hope in a year or two we keep growing rather than become profitable (1B+ valuation in a year).

Becoming profitable, even at this point is just a matter of deciding to stop expanding - but neither us nor our investors want this given there is so much potential for growth and more revenue streams on the line.

this is ycombinator's news aggregators, I suspect you're not going to get a "don't take risks and build things" vibe - it's a startup accelerator after all :).

▲

troupo 5 days ago | parent [-]

> all are profitable today and all were acquired.

They are either profitable or acquired :)

> Becoming profitable, even at this point is just a matter of deciding to stop expanding

Yeah, growth at all costs is one of the defining factors.

> it's a startup accelerator after al

The only business models for Y Combinator startups are:

- run indefinitely long on unlimited investor money

- get sold to the highest bidder at some nebulous market valuation

Becoming profitable never enters the picture :)

▲

sebastiennight 5 days ago | parent [-]

> They are either profitable or acquired :)

Why? Once a company has been acquired, does it automatically fall out of profitability?

If it's acquired in a stock sale, it remains an independent entity and still has a P&L

If it's acquired/merged in an asset sale (not usually a good sign), it can still be assessed whether the new division is profitable - except in some rare cases like Google (allegedly!) not wanting to itemize some of their divisions to avoid too much regulatory scrutiny on monopoly positions.

> Becoming profitable never enters the picture :)

Seems very wrong based on looking at YC's portfolio, which apparently includes a bunch of profitable startups

▲

troupo 5 days ago | parent [-]

> Once a company has been acquired, does it automatically fall out of profitability?

It becomes a part of the company that bought it?

> Seems very wrong based on looking at YC's portfolio, which apparently includes a bunch of profitable startups

It contains very few profitable startups. Those are the exceptions.

	▲	sebastiennight 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		> It becomes a part of the company that bought it? Not necessarily. As I explained above, most successful acquisitions are stock sales, in which case the acquiring company now owns the startup (they hold the shares). The startup is still a separate entity at this point. Google is known for just merging the acquired startups into their product line (and/or killing them), but it's not a hard rule that all acquisitions are mergers. For example, AFAIK Livestream is still a subsidiary of Vimeo (ie wholly owned, but separate): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vimeo_Livestream So Livestream can be profitable or not, separately from whether its acquirer is.

▲

lukas099 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> most startups and tech darlings survive only by continuous infusion of unlimited investor money.

Investors making long bets is a good thing, I’d argue.

	▲	troupo 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		The bets are invariably: sell to the highest bidder, exit through inflated IPO and/or speculative "market capitalization". There are a few outliers like "let's subsidize this price dumping until all competitors are dead and then we recoup money by being a de facto monopoly"