There seems to be something of a disconnect between the tech community and everyone else when it comes to Groupon. Investors clearly love it, it seems plenty of businesses are using it, and equally gazillions of people are buying them. I suspect, popular HN stories to the contrary, they'll successfully IPO later and won't collapse as fast as some hope.
Sure it's not for all businesses, and some will have a bad experience. Some business owners can't do math - some just aren't well suited to a group on model. Does that invalidate the whole company? I think not.
Sure, as a Groupon buyer you'll get plenty of deal offers for stuff you're not interested in. Well duh! I'm guessing that's been the case since day 1 anyway and it seems to be working regardless.
So why all the hate on tech blogs and commentaries? Might it be just a little bit of sour grapes? After all Groupon raised over a billion in capital (so if _I_ can't get a lousy million for my idea, what does that make me?) Worse most of the billion was not so much capital raised as a straight share sale. The reaction to other VC spends lately (notably the 40 million for Color) seems to fuel my hypothesis that most techies hate the success of others. They're playing this as some sort of zero-sum game.
It's also hard to get excited about someone else's success when it seems like such a simple idea. After all anyone can enter the same space - the barrier to entry is low (as plenty of clones will attest to.) But while clones always exist there is only one eBay, one Amazon, one Facebook, one Twitter. I suspect there will be one Groupon. As with most of these things, they're simple ideas, but require a lot of traction and good implementation to do well.
I say good for you Groupon. I say, let the seller of Groupons do the math before doing business, and let the buyers take advantage of what appeals to them. And maybe, just maybe, us techie folk could stand up once in a while, and say "well done" without begrudging them their success.
Of course Groupon might fail. Of course their IPO might suck. That can happen to any company. But we're acting like spoilt children, stamping our feet and complaining that life is unfair.
Sure it's not for all businesses, and some will have a bad experience. Some business owners can't do math - some just aren't well suited to a group on model. Does that invalidate the whole company? I think not.
Sure, as a Groupon buyer you'll get plenty of deal offers for stuff you're not interested in. Well duh! I'm guessing that's been the case since day 1 anyway and it seems to be working regardless.
So why all the hate on tech blogs and commentaries? Might it be just a little bit of sour grapes? After all Groupon raised over a billion in capital (so if _I_ can't get a lousy million for my idea, what does that make me?) Worse most of the billion was not so much capital raised as a straight share sale. The reaction to other VC spends lately (notably the 40 million for Color) seems to fuel my hypothesis that most techies hate the success of others. They're playing this as some sort of zero-sum game.
It's also hard to get excited about someone else's success when it seems like such a simple idea. After all anyone can enter the same space - the barrier to entry is low (as plenty of clones will attest to.) But while clones always exist there is only one eBay, one Amazon, one Facebook, one Twitter. I suspect there will be one Groupon. As with most of these things, they're simple ideas, but require a lot of traction and good implementation to do well.
I say good for you Groupon. I say, let the seller of Groupons do the math before doing business, and let the buyers take advantage of what appeals to them. And maybe, just maybe, us techie folk could stand up once in a while, and say "well done" without begrudging them their success.
Of course Groupon might fail. Of course their IPO might suck. That can happen to any company. But we're acting like spoilt children, stamping our feet and complaining that life is unfair.