| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 7 hours ago |
| > 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. |
