this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2025
769 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

1533 readers
318 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Wait but he controls the price, not the subscriber number?

Like even if the issue was low subscriber number (which it isn't since they're losing money per subscriber, more subscribers just makes you lose money faster), that's still the same category of mistake? You control the price and supply, not the demand, you can't set a stupid price that loses you money and then be like "ah, not my fault, demand was too low" like bozo it's your product and you set the price. That's econ 101, you can move the price to a place where your business is profitable, and if such a price doesn't exist then maybe your biz is stupid?

[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 10 points 3 days ago

I believe our esteemed poster was referencing the oft-seen cloud dynamic of “making just enough in margin” where you can tolerate a handful of big users because you have enough lower-usage subscribers in aggregate to counter the heavies. which, y’know, still requires the margin to exist in the first place

alas, hard to have margins in Setting The Money On Fire business models