Originally posted by: kei
how hard would it be to start up an internet company keep it running?
you mean some actually had models? Well, instead of thinking they'd be rich enough to date models...Originally posted by: Viper GTS
The companies were based on piss-poor business models.
Viper GTS
Originally posted by: kei
explain the ebay phenomenon
what do you think it costs to run ebay for 1 day?
I'm sure the cost of running ebay is negligible compared to their revenueOriginally posted by: kei
explain the ebay phenomenon
what do you think it costs to run ebay for 1 day?
can't really reply to this thread that much
at work, internet is slow, and i'm not a subscriber yet
Originally posted by: kei
explain the ebay phenomenon
what do you think it costs to run ebay for 1 day?
can't really reply to this thread that much
at work, internet is slow, and i'm not a subscriber yet
I miss getting my DVDs for $3 shipped from Reel.com
Originally posted by: RossMAN
Q: why did so many .com companies go belly up?
A: Because of those damn Ferengi's who made PointClick, Mercata, Accompany/Mobshop, Shopss, 800.com, Reel.com, Furniture.com go belly up!
Oh wait a sec ...
I miss getting my DVDs for $3 shipped from Reel.com
Originally posted by: vi_edit
I miss getting my DVDs for $3 shipped from Reel.com
I was more partial to bigstar.
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Can you say Value America?
They sold products at a loss. That's not a good way to make money.
That's pretty much what I said, but you were more eloquent. Let's give a big hand to those investment bankers and fund managers everyone *wild applause*Originally posted by: manly
Ebay enjoys substantial network effect advantages from their established position in the auction industry. It's essentially a monopoly position that no competitor can break into. Did you know ebay started when the founder wanted to set up a web site for his wife to trade Pez?
Furthermore it happens to be a heck of a business model. Build the software, and then just skim dimes from everybody who transacts through you.
Most dot coms failed because they were formed when venture capital was free flowing, and there were few solid businesses formed. Even if they had been well managed, particularly fiscally, most would have eventually failed anyway due to a lack of operating income. The only funny aspect of it is that with as much money as was thrown at start ups a few years back, some of them could actually have sustained operations for years longer if they had stayed small and not tried to make a splash.
Wall Street and VCs were totally complicit in the whole dot-com sham. In a large way, investment bankers' involvement in the run-up directly led to the tulip bulb bubble and subsequent burst.