| ▲ | 34679 7 hours ago |
| That's not so hard when you're also adding zeros to the funding. |
|
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > not so hard when you're also adding zeros to the funding Plenty of counter-examples, including the entire dot-com era. |
| |
| ▲ | 34679 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If revenue growth was all that mattered, you could just sell investor dollars for $0.50. | | |
| ▲ | trollbridge 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 99¢-Theranos style is better. Takes a lot longer for investors to notice. | |
| ▲ | jacquesm 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If you think that's the bar: it's been done, many times over. The unit-cost-profitability test was ignored by many VCs (they learned something and if they had deep enough pockets they got to play again). | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > If revenue growth was all that mattered Straw man. Nobody argued this. What was falsely stated at the start was turning investor dollars into revenue is easy. I specifically went into unit economics elsewhere [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50243393 |
| |
| ▲ | Zigurd 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Cisco is definitely not a counter example. They survived, but they could be a template for what will happen to OpenAI and/or Anthropic. |
|
|
| ▲ | brainwad 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 14x YoY revenue growth, with 3x lower operating losses (total, not per unit). They don't need to add any zeros to the funding and seem like they might even be operating at a profit soon... |
|
| ▲ | menshiki 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes, it is |
|
| ▲ | boringg 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| WHAT? Not so hard? Clearly written by someone who comments from the sidelines. Growth at that scale is hard. I don't care if you don't like the company - it still hard. |
