Hacker News Reader

Comment by zekevermillion | Hacker News Reader

Agree. The article could just as well be written about any other successful high-growth company. Continued survival will require further capital investment...no sh@*t! Obviously the author is just trolling for views. If SC announces another round, and then turns a profit in 3 years, someone will write another article about their "amazing turnaround".

View on HN

Just like how we're now writing about Twitter's 'amazing turnaround' after only 10 years of losing money. Oh, wait...

Twitter is a public company now, not a high-growth company. It's quite fair to criticize Twitter, or Zynga, for selling to the public at an inflated price based on hype -- after which their respective stock prices have languished. Keep in mind that there has been plenty of criticism of twitter from the very beginning, all while they went from being worth zero to $20 billion. The point is, criticizing a high-growth, privately-backed company like SoundCloud for losing money only makes sense if you want to criticize the entire model of venture-backed entrepreneurship.

Yes, that's what we want to criticize.

OK, but that wasn't the gist of the article. The article was only about one company as if the author is unaware of how VC works, for better or worse.

If we listen to you, it would seem that SC is both blameless, and - in fact - not in trouble at all.

And that's all fine and well. It sounds plausible. But it seems like every company is "blameless, and things are actually going peachy... but we still need more funding". And at that point the whole thing starts to become unraveled.

Really, is that what I said? You are committing a logical fallacy concluding that "this article doesn't prove SC is in trouble" implies "SC is not in trouble". Also you are making a big assumption that I approve of the venture funding model as applied here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com