105
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by bboplifa@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Synthead@lemmy.world 171 points 2 years ago

Predatory pricing catching up with them.

Saved you a click.

[-] DrSleepless@lemmy.world 37 points 2 years ago

Did you ever know that you're my hero?

[-] CaptObvious@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

And everything I would like to be....

[-] RememberTheApollo@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] sadreality@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Consumer used to be treated decently but now, both labor and consumers are treated like shit... Only one parry wins lol and it aint never the plebs

[-] Kerfuffle@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] awderon@lemmy.world 36 points 2 years ago
[-] fubo@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago

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

[-] propaganja@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years 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.

[-] ParkingPsychology@kbin.social 11 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] sadreality@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

Public markets are the bag holders....

Works similar to crypto...

[-] dragontamer@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

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

[-] ritswd@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Summary: “oh no, startups are risky”.

[-] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago

that is absolutely not summary of the article

[-] style99@kbin.social 2 points 2 years 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.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
105 points (88.9% liked)

Technology

72219 readers
1171 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 news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS