lotusleaf1987

They have a list of some ~60,000 merchants, email addresses in the tens of millions, no patents or 'moat', and they're trying to sell a dollar for fifty cents and make a profit. Also, how do you scale when you have 8,000 employees? That's a huge fixed cost. And these aren't huge barriers to entry for your competition--Twitter/Facebook/any website with an audience can basically do this.

I don't see how their model is sustainable and the entire premise of their success seems wrested on Groupon succeeding at things they haven't demonstrated yet.

Also, I see Groupon as a sales company, not a tech company.

Your favorite subject is always yourself.

Why should I care about this? Was bitcoin in the headline earlier?

Why is it necessary to "give up your ability to fit in with your own people" to understand another culture? Why would understanding America and Singapore mutually exclusive?

I know people who have lived abroad for a few years and returned--they weren't fundamentally changed or different, same person new life experiences is all.

Simple, Google is worried Groupon theoretically could get a huge share of local advertising like they were with Yelp.

Google isn't infallible, they are mortal. I think most likely they were willing to overpay because they could afford it and are desperate to get into "social".

Also, Groupon is a ponzi scheme because they use new investor money to pay old investors--not because they don't have a moat, which they dont-- no patents, 8000 employees and how do you scale with that many employees, a list of merchants and user emails.

At best they end up looking more like Avon.

There are almost zero barriers to entry. Groupon has a list of a few thousand merchants, a few million emails, 8000 employees, and sells a dollar for fifty cents. How can you scale with so many employees and ever be profitable? It's not sustainable at all. They have no patents or any semblance of a defensive moat. Groupon is also declining in the cities it first launched in like Boston. Their future does not look good.

Your comment is spot on except your hyperbolic and unnecessary attack on social security.

Groupon figured out a way to sell a dollar for $.50, and they use money from new investor's to pay the old-- just like a ponzi scheme.

Also what does Groupon have? A few thousand merchants, a few million email addresses, no patent portfolio, no moat so to speak-- and the fact they need 8000 employees mostly dedicated to sales means they can't scale well--ever.

Most likely Groupon has 6 months to a year before the money evaporates. If not then they end up like Avon or Snap-On tools at best.

The difference is... Groupon can never scale well and have great profitability-- they need 8000 employees to do what? They have a list of merchants and a database of emails and what else? As pointed out on another HN thread, Amazon built a moat what has Groupon done?

| edw: No, I think they should license it to HTC and all the other Android handset manufacturers, given them one more feature bullet point in their long list of features that the iPhone lacks.

What are you talking about? To follow your absurd scenario, you think if Apple gave this bizarre patent away, but none of their others, that the EFF should then turn around and backstab the inventors and license it to their rivals? Yeah that's real classy and makes a whole lot of sense..

Why do so many people see the world in these binaries? Good/evil, black/white, red/blue.

Why that's a total non-sequitur? If the patent is only specifically related to Apply products, then they should keep it to themselves.

There's no incentive for Apple to produce/sell this device.

This is always someone's reaction when someone calls bubble. I don't think it's justified you have to short the stock to be skeptical.

This is a purely defensive act to keep some company from producing a device that blocks Apple devices, but they can still make one for WebOS/Blackberry/Android/WP7.They're doing it to prevent someone else from producing/selling a similar device.

Steve Jobs at HP on his first gig at age 12, after calling Hewlett-Packard President Bill Hewlett: When I was 12 or 13, I wanted to build something and I needed some parts, so I picked up the phone and called Bill Hewlett—he was listed in the Palo Alto phone book. He answered the phone and he was real nice. He chatted with me for, like, 20 minutes. He didn’t know me at all, but he ended up giving me some parts and he got me a job that summer working at Hewlett- Packard on the line, assembling frequency counters. Assembling may be too strong. I was putting in screws. It didn’t matter; I was in heaven. I remember my first day, expressing my complete enthusiasm and bliss at being at Hewlett-Packard for the summer to my supervisor, a guy named Chris, telling him that my favorite thing in the whole world was electronics. I asked him what his favorite thing to do was and he looked at me and said, “To f*ck!” [Laughs] I learned a lot that summer.

Was this a real problem? Isn't there something more meaningful these legislators should be working on like jobs and our economy? What a charade.

I would consult an attorney asap.