I'm a bit confused. I feel like this is an extremely old joke at this point. Aren't we all pretty keenly aware of the memes and absurdities that crowd the startup industry? Am I missing some unique or new observation being made that hasn't been made 50 times already by pretty much everyone?
Truth can be stranger than fiction, what you described already happened. Back when everybody was going gaga for Kevin Rose's "Milk" startup a parody mobile app beta that pre-oink'd Oink called Jotly put out a video kind of like the Vooza one. The developer of the parody vid actually went on to release the app.
"We believe in the power of iteration, we originally started out as StumbleMonkey, which was like AirBnb but for online-dating, so when you left town you could rent out your spouse or partner. Great idea, but then we found out it was illegal, so we had to pivot.. So we changed our name to Googoprrrrrr. That's 6 r's. And that app was like Spotify, meets Grindr, but for rental cars, but ran as if it were for a hotel. "
Agreed. In this case I didn't even bother with the link & went straight to the comments. Usually the first few comments point out some flaw of the product __in clear language__ and from that one can work out what the product being criticized is. Much faster than trying to figure out the product from the company's marketing speak.
Since you're probably wondering whence downvotes: You seem to be talking about going into a thread with a confusing headline and not understanding the topic. You're not meant to wade in with nothing more than the headline as a guide. Commenting on a story without reading it is a really annoying practice that leads to some very frustrating discussions.
EDIT: Wow, downvoted into the ground for trying to be nice and explain constructively what I disagreed with. I don't mean to complain, but I would like to suggest that readers consider what kind of discourse they'd like to see before blindly downvoting.
5 upvotes came out of nowhere in 30 seconds so I'm not too worried.
But I'll point out two examples from just this week where article+headline completely failed. First is Aaron Winburn; I had no idea of why this was on HN until a commenter helpfully pointed out he was a Drupal developer. Second is "Trello is now half-million strong." The headline, nor the article, told me what the heck Trello was.
Maybe this is conscious decision on the part of the HN moderators to keep out newbs.
> Second is "Trello is now half-million strong." The headline, nor the article, told me what the heck Trello was.
How is that a problem in that particular case? This was not an introductory post for Trello. Introducing you to the product was not its purpose. This was an update on the product's blog telling you that Trello now has 500k subscribers. But if you for some reason clicked on the article wanting to know what Trello is, I'm pretty sure they have a link to the actual product right there. Including an introduction to Trello in the article text would have been a waste of most people's time.
Then again (and recognizing you make a good point), there have been plenty of times when I read the site, have no idea what is going on, check the comments for some enlightenment, and feel like I'm the only one who still has no idea what the article is supposed to be about.
I'm sorry to put an honest start-up down, but we do actually have a patent pending within the US on using a combination of mobile, geotagging and social media mining to steal your data (and everything else you own), which we filed to protect investors in our new start-up, Robbrrr (formerly burgle.me, formerly @MyHouse).
We too ran into a spot of legal trouble with our initial concept, but lawyers have assured us that if we pay them enough money, they can insert wording into our terms and conditions that means we can steal anything we want from anyone and be completely immune to consequences such as negative press, criminal prosecution, or not sleeping at night after finally accepting the ruthlessly exploitative and completely unethical nature of our business model.
We think we've built a great service and have complete confidence in our future revenue generation potential, but as luck would have it, we've just closed an acquisition deal with a totally above-board company called PatentULike, Inc anyway. They have given us written assurances that they are experts on collecting patents like the one we are about to receive and, despite not producing any tangible product or service so far, they have a sustainable business model that will allow them to exploit those patents fully in due course.
We feel this is the most socially acceptable exit under our current circumstances, leaving the fruits of our hard work in safe hands, providing a solid return for our early investors, and coincidentally also making us richer than Donald Trump's hairdresser.
But we'll have to ask these Vooza people to stop stealing data from mobiles, please.