this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
105 points (88.9% liked)

Technology

59288 readers
4645 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
105
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by bboplifa to c/technology
all 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Synthead 172 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Predatory pricing catching up with them.

Saved you a click.

[–] DrSleepless 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did you ever know that you're my hero?

[–] RememberTheApollo 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And they’ll still overpay themselves while making consumers and lower employees suffer. Consumers get shittier service and employees get shitty pay, longer hours, more demands…If they don’t get laid off.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

More like:

Predatory pricing

exists.

Don't hold your breath waiting for anything to catch up to the 1%. To be honest, I don't know the average person even really want it to. I mean, suppose I use Uber. Am I really going to be out there writing letters to my congresscritter pressuring them to force Uber to stop selling their product below cost and consequently make my Uber rides significantly more expensive? "Oh man, I sure wish Amazon would stop selling me such cheap products with next day shipping. This problem needs to be fixed, they're hurting the free market!"

Eventually the frog might get boiled, but that's some time in the future. The frog is feeling comfy now.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That's sad. I couldn't imagine bragging to the world about how I have no moral spine and will suck off whichever slaver gives me the comfiest servants' quarters, at least not without turning it into a parable about how I got disillusioned

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I couldn’t imagine bragging to the world about how I have no moral spine and will suck off

You realize I'm speaking generally, right?

In fact, I've never once used Uber or Lyft in my entire life. My point is that the average person isn't going to push for something that has a tangible negative effect right now to possible make things better in the murky future.

Now I could say: Well, the rabble sucks but I on the other hand am a cut above the rest. I'm one of the few who is willing to make the tough choices and endure whatever sacrifices are necessary to Do What's Right. But hey, talk is cheap so what's the point really? I guess if I'd added a bit about how special and great I am (it's true!) I might have avoided having my fellating skills become part of the discussion.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The point of it is ro share your experience and show it can be done to the "rabble" who would otherwise go "welp, it sure sucks... but what you gonna do?"

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

The point of it is ro share your experience and show it can be done to the “rabble”

There's nothing to figure out in the "how" part though. It's just a question of the person having the motivation to make personal sacrifices with tangible effects in the present for a less tangible benefit in the future.

Saying how I'd be the exception in this case seems more like boasting than really doing something constructive. That's not my style.

[–] awderon 36 points 1 year ago
[–] fubo 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Venture investing is the answer to the question of what would happen if you staffed a bank's loan department with adrenaline junkies.

Well, no. When a bank extends a loan, it knows the upper limit on how much money it can make from that loan. It might make less, if the debtor ends up defaulting on the loan; but it can't make more.

In venture investing, the upside is unbounded. The company might go to zero, but it might become the next Google; and the venture investor gets to own a fraction of that.

[–] drdabbles 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"new research" here translates roughly to "information known for over half a century".

[–] propaganja 6 points 1 year ago

"Information known for half a century that nevertheless didn't mean jack squat because it couldn't be legally explained in such a way that would convince a layman court to break past precedent; but that we've now reframed into a compelling interpretation that much more obviously meets the standards required for a court to rule something as 'predatory pricing''; thus, any future cases brought are much more likely to succeed."

tldr: We think we've found a way around the technicality VCs have been hiding behind all these years.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Where Wansley and Weinstein break important new ground is on the other legal standard set by the Supreme Court: recoupment of losses. If Uber and WeWork and the rest of the unicorns are perpetual money losers, it sounds like the standard isn't met. But Wansley and Weinstein point out that it can be — even if the companies never earn a dime and even if everyone who invests in the companies, post-IPO, loses their bets. That's because the venture capitalists who seeded the company do profit from the predatory pricing. They get in, get a hefty return on their investment, and get out before the whole scheme collapses.

Yep. The venture capitalists found a loophole.

[–] dragontamer 3 points 1 year ago

Whoops! Something went wrong. (404 page not found)

[–] ritswd 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Summary: “oh no, startups are risky”.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

that is absolutely not summary of the article

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

This article's blow-off strikes me as a little too Pollyanna to be believed:

The same kind of aha! light that went off for Wansley during his interview with the Lyft executive could start to go off for other people as well. Some of them will be investors who decide not to park their money in predatory tech companies. And some of them, perhaps, will be government regulators who are looking for ways to bust our modern-day trusts.