Hacker News Reader

Comment by agentgt | Hacker News Reader

IMO You really shouldn't want benign things such a med tech company to fail unless they were doing something really egregious. I normally never down vote but this comment is pretty negative. (Wishing others to fail)

I repeat for the downvoters the OP said he is rejoicing in the failure of a company. Screw people loosing their jobs.

I don't care if theranos is Exxon mobile or JP. I would rather they learn and adapt for the better. Stop doing what ever is bad. Btw this my first downvote ever of which I wrote a comment why.

Edit

I wish I could delete my comment as I guess I must have said something terrible to get so downvoted. I assumed I must have offended someone. I just don't like some one "hoping" for the down fall of others and I feel strongly about it.

View on HN

I would consider selling faulty tests to be egregious for a med tech company. I'm happy they are going down in flames; this is a public health concern. Their tact was borderline fraud.

You are layering rationalization around the original negative comments blaming statements and speaking for others. It's not appropriate to raise dissonance and then wish for more failure of startups. The startups are not to blame, but their business models are.

> The startups are not to blame, but their business models are.

That's kind of like saying it's not the robber who killed, but the blade of his knife, therefore the robber should not be blamed.

Business models don't just appear out of thin air to strike at unsuspecting people. They're willingly created and perpetuated by people in the process of running their companies, and thus the people (and the companies) are ultimately responsible for the consequences.

Startups failing is a healthy effect of the market differentiating good ideas from bad. Of course we all want it.

Clearly there is a disconnect on this thread that I approve of theranos and that I don't accept companies failing as a possible good thing.

Of course theranos did bad things and of course I companies failing can be good for the market but I don't hope for it just because I don't think the company is "humble".

And even if I think the company is getting unfair privileges and lacks humility I'd rather the company pivot or adjust then complete failure. And that whoever is enabling them (company) change as well!

Complete failure aka bankruptcy (or analog) is very bad particularly if the company is bigger.

Changing where you work can be as life changing as moving. Not all employees of a massive company have easy to switch jobs like developers do.

That is not what the OP said:

> I'm actually pleased to hear that a tech company is going to perish. Too many of them think they are invincible (airbnb)

The OP said a tech and not theranos. Wishing failure on really any company is IMO a terrible attitude. What you want is the company to change and improve.

It appears the OP is glad that people will loose jobs and options in the company (i.e. regular employees).

I don't agree with North Korea or China but do I really want them to fail? No you want change and improvement.

No. I'm glad to see extremely privileged well connected individuals getting fair treatment and not special treatment like they may have gotten all their lives.

There's nothing inherently "good" about the concept of an organized business.

I want North Korea to fail so the people in that country experience change. I don't care if the government itself survives, especially given the atrocities they've committed on their own people.

Companies shouldn't survive just for the sake of keeping people employed, either. They absolutely should be judged on their product. There's no ethical argument to make here.

Failure can be extremely volatile and potentially dangerous (it is one of the reasons we had a bailout). Incremental change can be often better.

I'm not saying I want the status quo but saying you want pretty much all tech companies to fail is extreme and is what the OP pretty much said.

North Korea and china MUST be successes; people live there. Meanwhile, businesses can and should fail, regardless of my stake in them. This is just how the market preserves efficiency, which we all benefit from. I don't see your point.

The OP didn't say theranos specifically. The op said

> I'm actually pleased to hear that a tech company is going to perish.

How is this constructive?

This isn't some joy in evolution or plot/crop burning:

> Too many of them think they are invincible (airbnb)

The OP is upset ostensibly because I guess they are not humble. And apparently neither is airbnb in his opinion. I bet MS and apple were not humble either in their beginnings. Both MS and facebook were founded by not rags to riches but Harvard drop outs with wealthy families.

I didn't mention theranos either.

Crops have inherent positive value. Business do not. Who cares about humility? It has nothing to do with whether a business should succeed or fail. People who have an axe to grind don't belong in a discussion about, well, anything but their feelings.

"out of death, comes life."

Creative Destruction - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction

Scammers ruin the reputation for the whole sector. You want such companies to fail as quickly as possible, so that they don't poison the market.

those losing their jobs will be able to get new jobs, mostly, assuming they were skilled workers with good job experience. these aren't dislocated struggling steel mill workers with no place to go after the only factory in town closes down.

Theranos _should_ go out of business. it was based on a fraud.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com