News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Silicon Valley’s business model is a scam by koolba on Tuesday July 18, 2023 @11:03AM (#36773591)
If VC has showed us anything, it’s that you don’t have to be cash flow positive. You just have to present the illusion that you just might be one day long enough to cash out.

The real people being scammed by all this are secondary investors and pension funds.

Re:Silicon Valley’s business model is a scam by mrguyorama on Tuesday July 18, 2023 @01:24PM (#36776131)
>The real people being scammed by all this are secondary investors and pension funds.

No, it's the real, legitimate businesses and employees that are in the space being """disrupted""" and lose their shirts and jobs because it's impossible for a legitimate business to compete with selling one dollar for fifty cents.

Add to that all the normal people who liked using those businesses and liked how small they were and were perfectly happy and now are stuck using a shitty evil megacorp

Re:Silicon Valley’s business model is a scam by koolba on Tuesday July 18, 2023 @03:46PM (#36778179)
There’s nothing inherently evil about large corporations and there’s no inherent right to a business model in the face of undercutting competition.

Just relax and enjoy the subsidized rides and grocery deliveries while it lasts.

Re:Silicon Valley’s business model is a scam by kcartlidge on Tuesday July 18, 2023 @04:14PM (#36778474)
> There’s nothing inherently evil about large corporations

The post you're replying to was specifically referring to the megacorps involved in the disruption and predatory pricing. They never said there was anything inherently evil about large corporations.

That said, I do agree with your prior comment:

> The real people being scammed by all this are secondary investors and pension funds.

Not exclusively, of course. You've both identified valid sets of victims.

Re:Silicon Valley’s business model is a scam by mrguyorama on Tuesday July 18, 2023 @06:01PM (#36779666)
I don't know what I was thinking. I should have said and also rather than "no"