points by 34679 3 days ago | 0 comments
That's not so hard when you're also adding zeros to the funding.
[–] JumpCrisscross 3 days ago
[–] 34679 3 days ago
If revenue growth was all that mattered, you could just sell investor dollars for $0.50.
[–] trollbridge 3 days ago
99¢-Theranos style is better. Takes a lot longer for investors to notice.
[–] jacquesm 3 days ago
If you think that's the bar: it's been done, many times over. The unit-cost-profitability test was ignored by many VCs (they learned something and if they had deep enough pockets they got to play again).
[–] JumpCrisscross 3 days ago
> If revenue growth was all that mattered
Straw man. Nobody argued this. What was falsely stated at the start was turning investor dollars into revenue is easy.
I specifically went into unit economics elsewhere [1].
[–] Zigurd 3 days ago
Cisco is definitely not a counter example. They survived, but they could be a template for what will happen to OpenAI and/or Anthropic.
[–] brainwad 3 days ago
14x YoY revenue growth, with 3x lower operating losses (total, not per unit). They don't need to add any zeros to the funding and seem like they might even be operating at a profit soon...
[–] boringg 3 days ago
WHAT? Not so hard? Clearly written by someone who comments from the sidelines.
Growth at that scale is hard. I don't care if you don't like the company - it still hard.
[–] menshiki 3 days ago
Yes, it is
Plenty of counter-examples, including the entire dot-com era.