Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
The failure of Sprig (twitter.com)
99 points by dangerman 17 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 81 comments

My insight into Sprig's business was limited, but my impression from being in the industry at the time and knowing several of their vendors and folks working for them in operations was that they were a typical Bay Area startup operating in an industry they understood poorly, without much interest in learning it from people who had made it their lifeblood for generations. You won't get far in the food industry if you don't appreciate that relationships are everything -- you can't treat vendors like APIs that hand you some resource, while building a reputation for low pay among the people making and delivering your food.

Good relationships with your vendors are how you earn pricing to support good margins even at "low" scale (compared to say Kroger) and unlock doors that will take you to 10x and higher. Good relationships with your employees is how you make people in the industry want to see you succeed -- no one wants to see yet another player show up in their industry driving down wages (allegedly in the name of efficiency while wasting orders of magnitude more food than your typical corner market with approximately the same revenue). And while none of this will get you all the way there when it comes to city government, it certainly doesn't hurt.

Food creation & delivery: A hyper competitive, low margin, inventory rotting, regulated, logistical & insurance nightmare. Sprinkle on a San Francisco Office + 1300 employees: Madness.

What waste: taking $2 worth of food across the city then trying to squeak out $10 -- after paying for the drivers time, the cooking staffs time, marketing, lawyers, the inventory staff, SF Rent -- there is nothing left but nursing home level food and bad reviews. Did anyone at this company know excel? One employee car accident your insurance drops you. One blown industrial food fridge your profits are gone for the month. One bad meal you lost a customer. My mind blows that experienced board members went along with this circus. Uber for cats just didn't cut it?

Contrast something like Sprig with Tso Chinese Delivery in Austin:

1. Instead of getting millions in VC funding off the get go, they started small as essentially a family business.

2. Chinese delivery is already super familiar to most people, so they just took it a step further: just a kitchen, no sit-down restaurant, developed their tech to improve delivery efficiencies.

3. They kind of got "lucky", if you could call it that, with Covid, in that most traditional restaurants were killed but a takeout-only business thrived. They also got a ton of goodwill for giving away free meals during the shutdown in TX.

4. I saw news that they recently got VC funding to expand their business.

I.e. they started small, proved their model, then used capital to expand, instead of getting millions thrown at them with hope that they'd eventually improve on a "lose money on every sale but make it up in volume" business model.

Sprig's food and delivery was pretty good at times, but the whole thing was so archetypical of venture backed insanity in SF and Silicon Valley. "We're going to throw a ton of money at X and disrupt it with our complete lack of industry knowledge and make a fraction back."

It was essentially a decent restaurant with convenient delivery, and no eat-in option. There's no magical hockey-stick growth curve to be had in the restaurant business. The marginal cost to delivery another meal or add a new customer is pretty similar at N as it is at N+1 or N+1000.

How did they get investment with that (lack of a) business model?

I don't think that's a fair characterization. Sprig's business model was somewhat novel. It had limited menu items (like 5 choices), prepared in advance and deployed in a fully loaded truck. Nothing was made-to-order. The truck just drove around from business to business and dropped off three #4s, two #1s, etc. It only served peak meal times.

Honestly I'm not quite sure why the economics were unfavorable. It should have been cheaper and faster than any other kind of delivery food.

Fair enough. I remembered the limited menus, but I had forgotten that part of the story about the food being already on the delivery vehicle when you ordered. The marginal costs for additional orders still applies. Unless you're taking a lot of bulk orders - say for lunch at an office - each order adds food and delivery costs. There's also the risk that you make too many of something that no one wants, and it gets tossed.

With having to predict the demand, there was the issue (also coming back to me now) that they would often not have a lot of choices left after a short time. The food was sometimes very good, but it was often so-so and too much the same. Or conversely, something that was really good the last time you ordered was no longer available. All of that added up to a certainly level of frustration.

That's not a new concept, that's just Meals on Wheels

Heard of pizza delivery? Similar business.

> Govt. SF health + planning made our lives hell. They didn't like our innovations.

What innovations did they make that the health department didn't like?

Exactly...I'd like to understand that as well. I really don't want to eat food where someone is 'innovating' (disrupting?) safety and hygiene regulations without some check and balance. And I don't think this 'attitude' on the part of health inspectors would be unique to SFO...

Probably some skirting of the rules around temperature keeping for pre-made items.

Let's be fair...if they've truly come up with a better, or at least equivalent but different, way of maintaining food hygiene that's more efficient that isn't being accepted because of regulatory ossification, then yeah, that needs to be addressed.

But I'd bet you're exactly right, and it's just "we're betting there's not going to be a major food poisoning incident before we find an exit and make it someone else's problem".

I loved Sprig. I used to use them as my example of a favorite product when asked in interviewed. Problem: I am hungry right now and can't/don't want to cook. Solution: As the founder notes, once signed in, it was literally three taps to get food to my door really quick. Also the design was beautiful.

Doordash, UberEats, et. al have certainly (glactically) widened the variety of food I could order, but I always find myself suffering from choice anxiety when I open those up. Sprig gave me a protein and veggie I could order without thinking too hard.

I get why the food delivery model doesn't work well in the US for anyone, and I did notice Sprig's decline in food quality, but I am still sad the company is gone.

I worked for a company that ordered Sprig everyday for lunch for a few months. It was pretty good at first, but at the time they only had something like 5-10 meals, and pretty much everyone grew tired of it within a couple months.

I realize that's a different use-case than occasionally wanting a relatively healthy meal, but wanted to add my experience.

>I always find myself suffering from choice anxiety when I open those up

This whole analysis-paralysis trend seems to be a thing not just in food delivery, but Netflix et al as well. I've lost count of the number of times I've kept scrolling through Netflix with a bunch of "okay" options at the back of my head, but searching for something better. Ditto for DoorDash.

I wonder how well an "I'm feeling lucky" button would do on a food delivery platform.

When you don't see something that's a definite "yes" after a couple minutes on Netflix, why not just stop looking? And if this happens often, why not just drop Netflix altogether? Curious about what proportion of the time Netflix is just a time pass at best. I can count the number of shows which I would recommend to a younger me who is deciding whether to watch those shows on one hand.

If you use Netflix that way, it effectively becomes a push technology.

I hate push technology, clear back to Pointcast.

The other thing that I hate about Netflix is that even when you search for a specific title, and they don't have it, they won't simply tell you that they don't have it. What they will do is bury you in listings of all their shows that have the most vague correlation to the title you actually searched for, even using just parts of random keywords.

Example: I just searched for "Dresden files". It proudly displayed "The Dresden Files" title, followed by mostly unrelated crap. Roswell? Wynonna Earp? The Greatest Events of World War II? Are you kidding me?

For the decision paralysis thing it helps to start a timer and force yourself to come to a decision by then. Or else come up with 2 or 3 decent options and then flip a coin/roll a die for the final decision.

> Problem: I am hungry right now and can't/don't want to cook

Solution: Pot noodles Solution: Learn to cook Solution: Granola bars Solution: Walk around the corner to your local taco store

Anything but "vc funded disruption of something humans have been successfully managing for thousands of years".

> humans have been successfully managing for thousands of years

That's not really a good reason to not innovate though. People have been harvesting crops manually for thousand of years, but we've improved.

> We finally got some progress on margins, but it meant degrading the product: food is fickle.

> Less money in, worse food out.

I tried Sprig a few times and really found the food quality so underwhelming that I never became a repeat customer. Maybe I caught them during this period.

How is it different than just settling on ordering from one restaurant nearby?

> Nobody talks about failure in Silicon Valley

What an odd thing to start with. People talk a lot about failure in Silicon Valley, to the point that it's a stereotype.

People talk a lot about it in the abstract, and there is a lot of armchair quarterbacking. I suppose all of that has a smidgen of value, if nothing else to set expectations of people starting out.

On the other hand, very few people with truly detailed internal knowledge talk about the why's and how's, especially avoiding 20-20 hindsight. It's a difficult enough thing to do objectively for yourself, and sharing it takes that up a notch. Especially when you're all but guaranteed to have a bunch of people tell you how you were obviously idiots; many of them having never so much as tried to build something new.

Why didn't they think "Oh geez, our idea isn't that revolutionary and anyone, including companies such as lyft or Uber with giant pockets can come in and swoop our lunch?" That should be the first day conversation. I am sure they had that, it would be stupid to not have, but the stupid part is about unsustainable growth whilst ignoring the competitive landscape with delusion.

I know retrospectives are always easy to do and criticize, but these types of ultra-fast reckless growth companies do not pause for a second and think about their risks. They're smoking that drug of % growth and VC funds pouring in. I live in SV and this type of thinking is everywhere. Flail without foundation. Why not think about building something that no one can just easily come in and render you completely useless? That means that the business idea wasn't strong enough and it was mostly scaffolding - there was no foundation. IP was thin ice. This is pretty common with these delivery businesses.

Build something that no one can easily replicate or compete with you. Build it so good that even if a competitor emerges, they have a lot of catch up to do. Build it slow, methodically and strategically. Unfortunately, growth hacking and bullshit pitches to the investors take precedence in SV from what I've seen. Not all companies are like that, but a lot of these hot bottle rocket companies die because of many aspects that were not thought out. Risk taking is great, reckless risk taking is not. A solid business is like a diesel engine than a hot bottle rocket. It is unstoppable once it picks up.

I love companies like Boston Dynamics. Took forever to grow. They spun off from the MIT Leg Laboratory in the 90's, built real IP, not some VC backed presentation with fancy graphics. Zero expenditures on marketing, all in on R&D and engineering until now. They're unstoppable and they haven't even started yet. I know a delivery business is very different from BD, just trying to make a general point about building IP. Any amount of money that Microsoft + Apple + Google all combined can throw billions and billions on this but they won't be able to compete with BD immediately. It takes time and throwing money at it doesn't help at all. That's the best hedge you can have!

Comments like these are why many founders prefer not to share their failure stories so candidly.

It's a well written, extremely well summarized postmortem. Of course it's obvious after the fact what they did wrong. You're shooting at an empty goal and, frankly, it's not very interesting.

I recognize it is easy to take shots at failures and I prefaced it with this recognition.

It feels like this is repeating pattern for delivery businesses, and it deserves harsh criticism. Anything with Uber for _____.

Would you give a pass to Juicero which raised $118M? Doesn't it deserve harsh criticism? Or we want to learn from Juicero's insanely delusional value proposition and may be inspire others to try again? What about Theranos?

I don't give Sprig the same footing for a postmortem than say, Gumroad: https://marker.medium.com/reflecting-on-my-failure-to-build-...

> I love companies like Boston Dynamics.... Any amount of money that Microsoft + Apple + Google all combined can throw billions and billions ...

I hate to burst your bubble, but BD was OWNED by Google for years, until they sold it to SoftBank because they couldn't figure out how to make money on it.

Yes aware of that - and they were being pushed around. BD was not part of anything when it started for over 15 years.

Because if everyone thought that, then no one would do anything. Basically every single company Apple, Google, FB, Tesla could have thought that and just concluded that they should not even try. And that's far, far worse for society than some food business not working out.

Which startup business model do you have in mind, that would survive Uber entering the same market, selling the same product but losing money on every transaction for five years?

I don't think you can really pay much attention to potential competitors. It's common to have competitors but rare to have good ones. And so, yeah, a lot of companies have deep pockets, but also that works against them in a particular way. The line of business that's making most of the money is also getting most of the good talent and leadership.

I think the GP's point is that some business models are predicated on having no competition, where even bad competitors will beat you if they just have deep-enough pockets to outlast you.

Compare and contrast: individuals suing large corporations. Even if the individual is in the right (i.e. has the "competitive advantage"), the corporation will still often "win" because it can just afford to keep delaying the trial longer and longer, until you run out of funds to keep the suit going.

Or, to put that another way: you can't run a siege without a supply train. The city will always have more food than your army brought with it. Unless more capital is flowing in to match the rate of replacement, they're eventually going to win.

What a refreshing read. We need more stories like these to ground the industry in reality. The investment machinery and the publication makes it such that we only hear about the “successful” ones. Then there are the “gurus” who amplify those rare successes to bait followers: “If xyz did it so can you if you just invoke the universe to assist you. Let success find you. Move fast and break things.”

This, so much. Successes are so amplified it’s impossible to find truthful opinions on shortcomings with primary evidence. These posts were very refreshing.

> we were down to losing just $1/meal ... We got to $0 margins

It doesn't sound like at any point they made a profit on any meal they sold, so in fact they weren't running a business but were just wasting investors' money. (I'm sure they had great plans on paper to turn a profit). I'd go further and say it's good that they failed so they can no longer distort the market for those companies who aren't highly capitalized and can turn a profit. Although unfortunately the competition in this space turned out to be another money losing "business" with even deeper pockets.

I saw one more reason for failure in there:

>> We were running a restaurant doing $6M in revenue but paying real estate for a place that needed $20M in revenue to be profitable.

Low interest rates. They drive real estate prices way up. Had they been able to buy vs rent or simply pay less, they would have been in better shape.

IMO low interest rates are actually causing problems for the economy.

That's why you should never start the Uber of X and the Amazon of Y. Because if the actual Uber and Amazon see that the market is good they will massacre you unless you're fortunate to get an offer from them.

Fwiw Instacart had the same problem, and it succeeded, even after Amazon acquired Whole Foods. It's really case-by-case, and depends on so many factors.

Instacart is doing well but I think it's still too soon to call it a success. Hell I don't even know if I'd call Uber/Lyft a success yet.

> Govt. SF health + planning made our lives hell. They didn't like our innovations. We had to bribe officials ("lobbying").

San Francisco's population leans quite left, but they seem to really hate change over there. I've never lived in a place so hellbent on ensuring that nothing changes. In fact--the entire bay seems to hate change, and the peninsula may arguably be worse.

There's that old saying: "you couldn't get elected as dogcatcher," that makes fun of the sheer number of elected positions in the US. It feels so true at the local level, with a bunch of domain specific politicians trying to exert their tiny slice of power. San Francisco seemed quite bad while I lived there, but they're hardly alone.

> 2) Gross Margins (GM). As we grew, our burn rate grew too. We were losing money on every meal. If only we could get to critical mass.

> We had epic revenue growth w/ burn rate growth. Soon we were burning $1.5-2M/mo!

> We were always “1-2 months away” from managing the burn.

I dont understand, how in good faith, he can bring up SF-regulations as issue #1. When issue #2 is the crux of all their issues. They lost money on every sale! Food industry is notorious for thin margins, and then had negative margins and growth. SF regulations dont matter compared to that.

People who are not in the actual retail restaurant industry do not understand that there's no way to make money with ghost kitchens. Theoretically, to make money with a ghost kitchen one needs it to be churning out a very large number of standard meals at a price that customers want to pay to achieve the economy of scale which at the same time requires an economy of scale in logistics, which has its own overhead. By the time you figured out how to make eick out money there, customer's preference changes and you need to start from scratch or a competitor shows up and cuts your margins.

> a very large number of standard meals

Or a number of meals all made of the same 5-to-7 ingredients arranged differently, i.e. the McDonalds / Taco Bell model.

McDonalds/Taco Bell do not have ghost kitchens. If all of their meals were completely and totally made off site and were delivered to the customer to order from an off-site then those would be examples of ghost kitchens.

I didn’t mean to imply that they did; just that their kind of menu-planning approach—of having many different (fast) final preparations that all take as input the same small set of pre-cooked ingredients—would also be a workable model to copy, to achieve the economies of scale that ghost kitchens require.

ghost kitchens can absolutely make money. Them being done at scale with VC money, most likely not.

But as the below commenter said, if you can use same ingredients across multiple dishes, it reduces waste and can reduce COGS. A small restaurant can do it, the issue there is establishing a brand, but if all your orders are coming via 3rd party apps. not sure how much brand awareness you actually need

"ghost kitchens" that make money are called factories. Factories where they make frozen pizza and lean cuisines.

> ghost kitchens can absolutely make money.

That is as assumption that has been made time and time again and it always failed. The most important part of a successful kitchen is a near zero dwell time. The smallest dwell time is achieved by having a kitchen be colocated with the customer.

As someone who has never worked in the restaurant industry, I don't understand, at all, what you mean by this. Could you elaborate?

Dwell time is the time between the order is finished and it reaching the customer who gives thumbs up or thumbs down ( order is wrong ).

It seems from the initial glance that dwell time is irrelevant because a kitchen can just go to the next order but that's not actually the case because without yes/no from a customer the kitchen can continue to make the same errors without adjusting. In the world of ghost kitchens dwell time is terrible because in reality the only feedback the kitchen gets is an asynchronous negative review that will be received a day or two later at best. That's the reason why pretty much all ghost kitchen based restaurants rapidly flame out.

Not them, but I imagine that it's because your fixed costs never stop — you can't just tell your staff to go home and not get paid until the next customer gets in.

Every hour you're open, money goes out. You need to have continuous sales to even have the opportunity to make ends meet. Even if you're losing money each hour but still making a few sales, you have some flexibility with tweaking your formula to reduce the losses or turn it into a net even. If you're just sitting idly, you're just burning money without anything to do about it.

The people of San Francisco are not "left" on local matters like planning and permitting. In fact they are absurdly conservative or reactionary. And they have plenty of reason to be: the people who own San Francisco property are riding a dynastic money machine. A surprising number of them can trace their family wealth back to literally Mexican land grants, or similar historical accidents. All of them enjoy a state tax system that disallows increasing their property tax rates and allows them to pass real estate to their heirs, tax-free, without ever marking them to market. So of course the people who have a vested stake in this fucked-up system will fight to freeze it in amber.

It's unfortunate that people get a sense of moral superiority for having one political view or another. It reminds me of how certain religious people have a sense of moral superiority and it makes them incapable of introspection. Not to mention that labelling an entire city as "left leaning" is absurd.

People get a sense of moral superiority for having one political view or another _after choosing among alternative political views by comparing their relative morality_. What do you do? Treat it like being a sports fan? Flip a coin?

Labelling an entire city as "left-leaning" is a perfectly reasonable and quotidian practice. For instance, if over a period of time, City A generally voted for left-leaning politicians and passed left-leaning referenda, while City B generally voted for right-leaning politicians and passed right-leaning referenda, most people would think it was fair to characterize City A as "left-leaning" and City B as "right-leaning".

I'm guessing by the including of "entire" you are confused about the meaning of "leaning"? It means that on average, compared to some larger (e.g. national) mean, the population of a city has views that are to the left of that mean. It doesn't mean every single person has left views on every single issue.

It's a very widely shared perception that San Francisco was left-leaning for the latter half of the 20th century into the beginning of the current. Early San Francisco was dominated by a relatively conservative patrician elite but over time it earned its "Baghdad-By-The-Bay" (https://www.amazon.com/Baghdad-Bay-Herb-Caen/dp/0891740473) reputation from things like electing the first openly-gay man to political office in America (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk) to being the epicenter of the sociocultural phenomenon known as "The Summer of Love" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_of_Love).

In 2016 only 10% of San Francisco voted for Trump. There was not a single neighborhood that had higher than 30% for Trump. So "left leaning" is apt, if you agree that left / right roughly maps to Democrat / Republican.

Unfortunately, left/right does not map to Democrat/Republican.

> There's that old saying: "you couldn't get elected as dogcatcher,"

To be pedantic, this phrase actually refers to the quality of the person rather than the number of positions. The meaning is essentially "you're so unpopular you couldn't get elected to the most trivial/inconsequential position imaginable"

More on your point I frequently observe that administration expands until it becomes the purpose of the organisation. You start out with something serving users (eg Education, or Government) which as it grows in size requires more coordination. However past a certain point the administrators require help themselves, starting the inevitable growth outside of user pressure. Eventually you reach a tipping point where there are more people working on improving administration than those working on improving user experience.

He never says how the business responded to this. I.e. why didn't it shift to Oakland, San Jose, or even another metro area. Unless the business model only worked in San Francisco.

Population density (of target audience) is one of the most crucial things for a service like 15 minute food delivery, so if restricted to the Bay Area, few places can compete with SF. Further, cost of living in SF is significantly higher, which allows you to charge more... but your costs also increase, unfortunately. So you might be motivated to have a second “back office” in a cheaper neighborhood doing as much of the processing as possible, and then doing the final assembly in the “front office”... but food can lose freshness very quickly; so the game goes. I guess the point is that they “learned” that there doesn’t exist a sustainable market for food delivery in the given situation.

3 years of constantly losing money.

Failed because of Uber which has significantly larger pockets and is constantly losing money.

Why are all these called "a business"? These are all price dumping ventures relying on external coffers.

The whole bubble foam is called "gig economy", previously in business as "sharing economy".

1,300 employees for 4300 meals a day? that couldn't be right. That's less than 4 meals delivered per employee.

> It was UberEATS, which launched that week.

He doesn't mention it specifically, but UberEATS was 15-minute delivery at the time, IIRC

Competitor SpoonRocket closed just 1 month later: https://www.inc.com/kenny-kline/how-spoonrocket-blew-135-mil...

Although, Postmates got into the game the month after that, in NYC: https://techcrunch.com/2016/04/19/postmates-launching-15-min...

So Sprig was a venture backed ghost kitchen? It would be interesting to put their food on Uber Eats today and see how they’d do.

I had it a few times, it wasn’t bad food.

Anecdote: I remember trying it in Chicago! I think they had the first meal for free or something. The food was pretty bad so I never tried again.

Related is the story of Bento from the StartUp podcast. https://gimletmedia.com/shows/startup/awhmbo/kitchen-confide...

The restaurant industry is brutal.

I don't understand restaurant delivery. Just cook for yourself. You get something cheaper, faster, healthier, possibly better, and the satisfaction of doing something useful with your hands.

you probably don't understand restaurants either right?

Ah yes, when a competitor offers a product at negative profit just to drive you out of business is capitalism... except when you do it another country you call it colonialism.

slightly off topic: what is the motivation to use twitter for writing very long posts? splitting your message up into so many tweets seems so distracting. what's the big idea of splitting it up?

It's the audience. That's where the audience is.

Also Twitter is amazing, you always see stuff only from the people you follow, so he knows his audience is people who want to listen to him.

Let's put that another way, then:

Why use Twitter for the whole post, rather than using it for a summary or above-the-fold section of the post, with the actual post hosted somewhere else and linked to from that summary tweet?

It's not as if any of the individual tweets, other than the first one, were formatted usefully as soundbites worth an individual retweet. The only thing people were sharing/responding to was the first tweet. So, AFAICT, that's the only part that needed to be a tweet, right?

Clicks through drop off really fast. I know I almost never do it. The tweet thread format is good for information in small bites. I know that each tweet has got to have more information and I can just stop at the first that is meh because it's written for insiders.

Articles on the other hand are written for an audience that usually likes more background etc. because that audience will complain if the background is absent.

But you have to click the tweet to see the thread anyway. What's the difference between clicking through to the thread, and clicking through to open the article in the embedded webview? Either way, you're stuck synchronously looking at the story until you click "Back."

If it's just a matter of journalistic style, I assume there are people out there who write articles the same content-dense way people write tweetstorms; you could just decide to only follow such people.

I don't know what to tell you except that tweets are way more information-dense than anything else. The Medium audience demands "modern long-form" style with personal anecdotes and all that. The Twitter audience demands the punchy short stuff. So I know what I'm going to get on Twitter.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting someone write for some other audience or site first and then share the results on Twitter. I’m suggesting that someone write for Twitter, starting off by writing essentially the tweets they were going to write, but offline in a text editor; then edit the resulting paragraphs for readability/flow; then slap that prose into a Gist and take the https://gist.io/ view of it (or do any other equivalent "pastebin to clean, unlisted-but-linkable HTML page" flow); and then publish the first of those tweets, as a link to that HTML page.

In other words: maintain a blog on Twitter, where the tweets serve as the blog’s chronological index / human-readable RSS-feed and interactive comments section; and floating text pages hosted in arbitrary other places serve as the blog’s content. This idea is what “microblogging” was supposed to mean, before the media re-interpreted it as being equivalent to “really enjoying this poop I’m taking”-style life-logging.

I’ve always been surprised that Twitter itself doesn’t have a built-in first-party workflow for this. Tumblr, the other 20-year-old microblogging platform, does: you can publish a post with an embedded “Read More” break, that will hide everything below it in your feed but show it when the static-HTML version of the page is viewed, with the “Read More” link at the bottom of the post in the feed, linked to said static-HTML page. It would make a ton of sense to me for Twitter to have something that’s half this, and half Reddit’s approach to text posts: giving you the ability to create a tweet that, instead of having a linked URL to go with the tweet, has a longform text body to go with the tweet.

Think about the fact that you can “attach” a multi-minute-long video to a tweet as a first-party workflow, and Twitter will host the video for you — but you can’t “attach” a multi-minute-long blob of rich prose text, where Twitter will host the text for you. Seems silly when I say it that way, doesn’t it?

Haha, I get what you mean, but the people who want that get that from the Thread Unroller apps so the need really isn't there. The Twitter restriction ensures that I get Tweet-style content.

They're going where the audience is, and where they can get maximum exposure (retweets).

> After @sprig, I took off and traveled the world.

Apart from the spelling, where do I even begin with this last tweet? I'm sure that most right thinking folks know what I mean.

Edit: just to clarify, I'm looking at the optics of walking away from a failed business that was a glorified takeaway (that thought it didn't have to obey food health rules - that's yer disruption there eh?) and still having enough money in the bank to "travel the world" and expecting us to feel sorry for the poster. Most normal business owners would never be in that advantageous financial position.

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