undefined | Better HN

story

0 pointsJuliate1mo ago0 comments

That's kind of proving my point here.

E-commerce succeeded, but not in the form Pets and WebVan proposed, and not in the timeline their investors needed.

The question is not: is it useful, but (as any investor asks): does this bet, at this valuation, deliver what it promises, in time? That's the audit we need.

When the bet distorts global semiconductor supply chains, displaces workers, and rides on mass IP infringement... skepticism looks more like due diligence than contrarianism.

0 comments

Aurornis1mo ago

A few early companies failing to find product-market fit before the money runs out doesn't prove anything, other than that early stage startup investing is hard.

Webvan and Pets.com were held up as proof that e-commerce couldn't work at all because nobody wanted it. What really happened is that we now have e-commerce at a scale that WebVan and Pets.com couldn't even dream of.

Pets.com now goes to PetSmart.com which does basically what Pets.com was trying to do and has a successful business out of it.

If your point is "some early investors will lose their money" then I agree wholeheartedly. That's not a novel claim, though. It's also not what the blog post is arguing.

JuliateOP1mo ago

Right, but PetSmart was an existing retailer that added e-commerce, not a startup burning VC money on an unproven model: the tech worked, the hype-driven bet didn't.

GenAI has its uses. That it will transform everything for everyone, and that this justifies to dump laws and people, that's the part that deserves hard-earned scrutiny.

ThrowawayR21mo ago

Calling the catastrophic dotcom bust that imploded ~50% of internet companies and caused a ~90% drop in combined market valuation for the remainder and nearly wiped out market leaders like Sun Microsystems and Cisco merely as side effects "A few early companies failing to find product-market fit before the money runs out..." is a very peculiar take.

Aurornis1mo ago

Nothing peculiar about it. You’re making the same category error as the blog: Trying to equate the failure of a few companies with the failure of a technology.

You’re also trying to include companies which did not fail in your argument about the dot com bubble. Cisco is a very large and thriving company today and networking equipment is everywhere. Why would you use that as an example?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

Aurornis1mo ago

A few early companies failing to find product-market fit before the money runs out doesn't prove anything, other than that early stage startup investing is hard.

Pets.com now goes to PetSmart.com which does basically what Pets.com was trying to do and has a successful business out of it.

If your point is "some early investors will lose their money" then I agree wholeheartedly. That's not a novel claim, though. It's also not what the blog post is arguing.

JuliateOP1mo ago

Right, but PetSmart was an existing retailer that added e-commerce, not a startup burning VC money on an unproven model: the tech worked, the hype-driven bet didn't.

GenAI has its uses. That it will transform everything for everyone, and that this justifies to dump laws and people, that's the part that deserves hard-earned scrutiny.

ThrowawayR21mo ago

Aurornis1mo ago

Nothing peculiar about it. You’re making the same category error as the blog: Trying to equate the failure of a few companies with the failure of a technology.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse