| |
| ▲ | shimman 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The only people "relying" on this are other startups whose VC benefactors force them to use other products under their portfolio in order to goose up their numbers. | | |
| ▲ | b65e8bee43c2ed0 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | that makes so much sense. I always wondered how the fuck did all those ZIRP era "hello world as a service" bullshit startups have any customers at all. | | |
| ▲ | nerdsniper 27 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Well, my org decided to pay for Monday.com, and still does, even though no one uses it. We also pay for Asana, and the wonks use that instead. I suspect a lot of larger orgs just have site-wide subscriptions with volume discounts that they don’t need. |
| |
| ▲ | CityOfThrowaway 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I've raised venture from a lot of the big firms (and a lot of small firms) and have never had any of them attempt to force me to use anything. | | |
| ▲ | windexh8er an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | You may not even see it. I worked in a startup whose founder had money dipped into about a dozen products in the cyber security vertical. Many of those startups, I later found out, had access or used products from others in his portfolio. Basically taking $50k and cycling it through all of them buying something from the other one. I doubt it was a money laundering scheme, but it sure was convenient to just add logos of "customers" to the Nascar pitch slide. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 26 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > any of those startups, I later found out, had access or used products from others in his portfolio This is just us angel investors being kooky. If I meet someone I'm impressed by, I'll tend to fall into a pattern where half of my conversations over the next weeks will wind up with me making an introduction to them because I think they could be vaguely helpful to the problem just described to me. (In most cases, the effect fades after a few weeks. In some, it doesn't–those are winners.) |
| |
| ▲ | rafram an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Go to the website of pretty much any AI startupslop, Google who led their series A, then Google who led the series A of the other AI startups (it’s always other AI startups) whose logos they show as users/testimonials/case studies on their landing page. You’ll start seeing a pattern. | | | |
| ▲ | gneray 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | +1 |
|
| |
| ▲ | yawnxyz an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Stainless was a fantastic product; every product/service has to start from somewhere | |
| ▲ | jMyles 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It may be that there are many projects relying on Stainless, or, as a sibling comment points out, it may be portfolio-based stack selection rather than actual feature dependence. Either way, it does seem irresponsible and tone deaf for an acquiring/hiring company and an acquired/hired company to send these conflicting signals. If one puts oneself out there as dependable in the face hopes and needs of other, smaller, up-and-coming projects, then a rapid wind-down for $ is incongruent with such a posture. So much so that, at least for my part, I'd be quite reluctant to hire someone who had engaged in this sort of bob-and-weave pursuit. |
|
