[gmantom]

Many of the comments on here are pretty negative.

I'm pretty sure it is partly because most startups are started in some Garage without 250 million in runway. That doesn't mean this won't work. The fact that they are in New York/New Jersey and not in San Francisco might be another reason but that also does not mean this won't work.

Just because you can't understand it does not mean it won't work, in fact it probably means it's more likely to work.

http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/11/a-month-after-launch-discou...

They already passed some big names in this space.

They are clearly doing something right. The near 100% growth month over month they quoted today on some of these articles is also pretty good indication that things are probably working, the fact that they had a reported million dollars in sales in their first day of opening the site is probably another good indication that they might be onto something.

http://recode.net/2015/07/22/jet-the-new-amazon-competitor-h...

It's too hard to tell with these kinds of things but this is a smart decision to not lock themselves into a Prime/Costco only model and certainly not an indication that things aren't going to work.

They have only actually launched and been live for two or three months their trial memberships were probably not even up yet considering they gave everyone like six months or a year free.

[swingbridge]

The point is that they now have no clear path to be a real business. The growth figures you point to are irrelevant when you read the articles about how they are actually doing sales. Anyone can buy stuff and sell it for less than they bought it for and use VC money to make up the difference. People will buy as much as they can from such a sucker until the game runs out.

Their original business plan was crazy ambitious but if they pulled it off (i.e. Got enough subscribers to make a profit) it was theoretically possible. Now there's no clear plan. They have to compete with Amazon, a company that barely makes any money on retail despite having like 40+ million people paying $100 a year to subscribe to the site.

They're spending crazy sums of money blasting into a market where there is no "money left on the table." Business 101 says that's a suicide mission.

[pavornyoh]

>Many of the comments on here are pretty negative. I'm pretty sure it is partly because most startups are started in some Garage without 250 million in runway. That doesn't mean this won't work. The fact that they are in New York/New Jersey and not in San Francisco might be another reason but that also does not mean this won't work.Just because you can't understand it does not mean it won't work, in fact it probably means it's more likely to work.

Fair enough.. We are just questioning how it is going to make money as the subscription model is suppose to be it's main source of revenue. Although it has surpassed some big names, that can change quickly. History has a way of repeating itself when it comes to start-ups such as this if you know what I mean. $250 million is ALOT of money..

[powera]

Yes, it's negative. Investing two hundred and fifty million dollars in something that seems to have no business model other than giving money away is the exact opposite to the YC philosophy of starting companies. And the signs you claim mean they are "doing something right" I claim are only signs that they're spending 250 million dollars.

And remember Carl Sagan: "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."