Riod

9 ms·

1.
The ‘minimum viable product’ infection(ftalphaville.ft.com)
2 points by Riod 11y ago|0 comments
2.
by Riod 11y ago
Ever heard of Xiaomi?
3.
by Riod 11y ago
I think everyone is ignoring the fact that he really wanted to work there. If you're in that boat then yes this makes sense. But if like most people you're not exactly gaga over the company but value other factors like pay and lif
4.
by Riod 11y ago
What? You can't be serious..
5.
by Riod 11y ago
I think ^^ is the guy who wrote the post. But he is still off the mark.
6.
by Riod 11y ago
It would most likely not get past Google's board. And investors would crucify them for paying that kind of premium for a stalled social network (aka don't get the incremental benefits of growth via network effects). They would be
7.
by Riod 11y ago
I have. Gives me a bunch of bs I have no interest in. How about ask me/infer from who I follow, what I'm interested in? Google now does that and blends it in with more general stories; simple and useful. Not intrusive and useless
8.
by Riod 11y ago
If it is an early stage company that has the ability to not just increase revenue/customer but also total number of customers. Also the competition in the bidding process matters. There are a limited number of players who can/will
9.
by Riod 11y ago
Honestly even the changes twitter has made have been poor. Moments should ask you, like Google Now, what you're interested in. What use is a random burst of stuff if you're interested only in big basketball stories? It should blen
10.
by Riod 11y ago
Good idea. Actually moments should ask you what you're interested in. Kind of like Google Now. I don't need a feed full of celebrity news
11.
by Riod 11y ago
Even assuming everyone bought in at today's low cost base; who would agree to this? Would you voluntarily lose $15+/share for...for what exactly? Greater good?
12.
by Riod 11y ago
If they cared they would have done it long ago. They chose to make money off those listings instead
13.
by Riod 11y ago
Because they were making good coin from those listings
14.
by Riod 11y ago
He's actually pretty much spot on. It's not a coincidence that Twitter has 5x less users than Facebook after so many years.
15.
by Riod 11y ago
Bernanke and treasury alone could not have done it. The government could have. What he left out was that they never considered nationalizing the banks. No narrative here; just pointing out what a Nobel prize winning economist laid out.
16.
by Riod 11y ago
Roger that. Cheers.
17.
by Riod 11y ago
Yes they did. They were stopped by their ideology. The government could have easily nationalized it. Here's Paul Krugman talking about it right after Lehman went under: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/o
18.
by Riod 11y ago
I think China has learnt from the US example that letting big banks fail is a stupid thing to do.. Krugman on this: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/opinion/23krugman.html
19.
by Riod 11y ago
Bass was kinda wrong on his Japan trade though. Doesn't work every time. Also the big issue with 2008 was that the government led Lehman fail; a huge mistake. They should have nationalized it or taken a majority equity stake in it at p
20.
by Riod 11y ago
? The whole company = the enterprise value of the company. Maybe you didn't understand what buying all of twitter meant. My point is if you bought twitter for $1 and with their XBN revenue, all you'd have to do to earn a 100% retu
21.
by Riod 11y ago
Lol "We actually don't know if India would have been worse or better off without Britain's influence, and we can't possibly know" See my other statement: Honestly I think this reflects a fairly common sentiment amon
22.
by Riod 11y ago
Exactly. Plus buffett came with a hugely successful track record from his partnership days and bought Berkshire outright. What the hell has anyone on Yahoo's current board or Marissa done in terms of earning a return on capital?
23.
by Riod 11y ago
Actually the worst part of twitter is that things disappear so quickly (till recently). 320MM MAU doesn't mean everyone sees that. A TV ad can 1) be sent to any station, 2) has a good chance of being seen by a large % of people tuned i
24.
by Riod 11y ago
Neat, me too.
25.
by Riod 11y ago
No. Really depends on the price of B. If you could buy all of twitter for $1 now, you wouldn't?
26.
by Riod 11y ago
Maybe that was how he was thinking about it. Hope it works out for them. Cheers.
27.
by Riod 11y ago
Talk about straw men and a lack of facts. Nobody said India would have "kept up" with the West or was on the verge of an industrial revolution. I am merely saying that the British miracle was less because they were so smart and mo
28.
by Riod 11y ago
Let me also give you a modern example so it makes sense. China didn't invent the smartphone; IBM did. But there's a transfer of technology that allows chinese manufacturers to import/figure out how to make smartphones. Now th
29.
by Riod 11y ago
Point is they climbed it by having a subjugated captive population who were not even allowed to make salt let alone textiles[1]. That population was forced to plant cash crops (primarily cotton) that could then be exported to Britain at fix
30.
by Riod 11y ago
I think reddit is more the space for you; hacker news tends to be for people who like data; not arguments plucked from your brain. From wikipedia: Number of Looms in UK Year 1803 1820 1829 1833 1857 Looms 2400 14650 55500 100000 250000 Tell

More ›