Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Fred W just wrote about this, with a fairly moderate perspective. Reality check, rather than reality crashing down.

I think wework just has too many things wrong with it. (1) Recent IPOs (eg uber), weren't great. (2) Financial performance from uber and other recent IPOs isn't great. (3) Theranos is old-ish news by now, but it's a good example of what public investors are looking out for: bubble excesses. Public markets atm are moneyed, but skeptical. Worried about this new, enormous private equity market pumping and dumping on them.

Once you add in the (4) difficult-to-understand ownership structure (with dubious scent), (5) complex leveraging/debt/liabilities and (6) complicated entanglement in the real estate market movements.....

It just adds up to too much, IMO. Every one of those 6 "problems" could make wework look like a "you should have known better" investment, CEO scandals cultural weirdness aside.

^IMO it's more about monopolies (thiel's definition) than software. Selling software doesn't guarantee "software margins" long-term. What uber, wework, etc. lack is monopoly mechanisms: lock-in or network effects. Even though uber is a market/network, the market can happily bear more than one ride hailing app. That means margin-killing price competition.




Personally, I'm delighted to see the unicorn bubble popping. For a long time I've felt like the "Uber for X" wave of companies soaked up a lot of investment that should have gone to people building reasonable businesses. It seemed to me that investors were looking for the next Google, the next Facebook. Ignoring that when Google and Facebook started out, they were much more focused and modest than the high-drama unicorns hyping up how they were going to dominate the planet. (And also ignoring that both were profitable at IPO.)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: