Good products and bad business

Over the past 15 years, digital intelligence has captured the imagination, changed attitudes and transformed businesses and industries.

It would seem surprising, therefore, that many good digital products of this generation have come from bad marketing.

Spotify has been tweaking the music, but the company is still looking at how to get the same results. Uber has transformed the city and has become a way of life for some riders and drivers. The company also spent more money than it had brought into its 13-year life.

App companies like DoorDash, Instacart and Gopuff have connected some Africans with home-delivered groceries, snacks or convenience items, but very few companies bring us new food. the door made him work financially. Robinhood has helped make access accessible and fun, but it has not yet made free commercials profitable. Twitter is a force for good in culture, but it is certainly not a good company.

There are some tech stars who are still (arguing) good businesses, including Facebook, Airbnb and Zoom Video. But how do so many companies with technology changes violate the law that the business dies if it can not balance on its bookshelf?

The good idea is that we want companies like Uber and Robinhood to have the time and money to promote their products, pull as many customers as possible and work out the revenue later. And some of these digital stars are rewarding, depending on what you mean by “benefits.”

The negative thinking is that we will be living in a technologically advanced environment and the risks of a business that should not survive have robbed us of the true, innovative technology. Let us hash it out:

Probably this is like a revolution.

Last year, Uber spent nearly half a million dollars more than it’s designed – and that was a big improvement. If Uber is a family business, it may be gone for a long time. Belief that the tech revolution was just beginning, and that consumers were hoping to make money from it, made Uber go.

Company supporters say Uber is the land of choice. Uber has expanded to many cities and countries at once without slowing down and commercializing its reputation by expanding into the transportation and delivery of food, groceries, alcohol and other items at our door.

The hope is that this will be Step 1 of Uber’s path to something bigger, better for everyone and worthwhile. A similar shift has occurred at Spotify, which is trying to overcome the negative numbers of streaming music by expanding it into high-quality podcasts. Instacart wants to pivot by making food-delivery-middleware or also selling software to big stores to manage their business. (Software likes to be cost-effective. Products are not shipped.)

In many ways, this is what we need to have. Because investors have faith in their business plans, creative companies have the time and money to dream big, expand and decide what to offer customers. how – and ultimately create real results, too.

Amazon is a famous example of a company that spends more money than it brought to the early few years – temporarily until it has both good products and good business. Until a few years ago, Netflix still needed loans to stay afloat. And some companies, including DoorDash and Spotify, are not as profitable as standard financial instruments but take more money than they spend.

Or maybe hope has made the assumption negative.

Another possibility is that these digital concepts never made a profit in the first place and they were created by the investors’ false expectations. In that sense, this generation of “Profits? What are the benefits? Digital companies like the landlord are trying to make the house bigger with a rotten foundation.

In the Margins article, financier Ranjan Roy and his partner Can Duruk reiterated that the digital ideas of the last ten years do not have to be the smartest, but the ones that have more money to try (and keep trying).

Roy told me, “When a lot of money is focused on the wrong ideas, we will not come together to find the right ideas,” Roy told me. “It is a perversion of capitalism.”

What opportunity do we miss, Roy asked, to explore another restaurant-delivery business that could work better for customers, restaurant owners, couriers and shipping companies? Maybe Uber both burned a bunch of other people’s money and paved the way for other businesses and governments to improve transportation. Replacing Spotify’s ingraining paid model that has not worked for most musicians, another way would be successful.

Companies, which have not seen a way to make their products financially viable, have become like a forest that has not been cut down and undergrowth. New life without oxygen to prosper.

I find it unbelievable that more than a decade ago during the digital transition period, it was not yet clear how history books would affect this period. Are we at the beginning of a tech-turbocharged transition to the world around us? Or is all this a good dream?


  • How Elon Musk decided to invest: The richest person in the world and soon became the owner of Twitter often makes “almost, beautiful and sure it is 100 percent,” my colleagues reported, according to interviews with people who have worked with Musk.

  • China’s censors can not keep: According to Bloomberg Businessweek, the public’s online complaints about Chinese government policy Covid-19 have led to government censors working on censorship of key messages by popular apps. (Registration may be required.)

  • “You’re going to learn what Twitter is.” A local TV-news segment from Twitter in the early days explains the difference between online addiction. Twitter started in 2006, so it’s not too long!

Say Hi for this surprisingly fast platypus.


We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what you would like us to research. You can contact us at ontech@nytimes.com

If you did not receive this newsletter in your inbox, Please register here. You can also read Previous From Tech Line.

Leave a Comment