[ChuckMcM]

Its a valid question, clearly they weren't making enough money to survive as a proper business. Would you have paid more for their service? And if so enough more that the reduction in users covered the cost of operations?

One of the things that that comes up a lot with new ventures is that they don't know the answer to those questions when they start, but they do when they either die or succeed. In this case it seems that its financially feasible as a "feature" of Outlook rather than a standalone business.

[Mithaldu]

Looking at the landscape of startup "businesses" recently it is becoming more clear that the viability of the product is irrelevant, since the goal is to get noticed as good programmers/designers who made a "real" thing and get hired.

[ChuckMcM]

You have to be careful slipping into cynicism, I try to guard against it myself. Shipping something is a better indicator of execution than a degree and it does get people noticed, but it would be an overreach I think to suggest that the majority of businesses start out looking to be bought and acqui-hired. Sometimes the idea is bigger than that, and sometimes it isn't.

[ranndino]

I'm intimately familiar with the space, especially when it comes to Silicon Valley startups, and it's no cynicism, but reality that most of them do, in fact, start out looking to be bought. In fact, that's the #1 goal of VCs, angel investors & almost all founders.

[greglindahl]

You're responding to someone also intimately familiar with the space. Honestly, arguing whether something is a majority view vs a big minority isn't that interesting.

[Mithaldu]

Honestly, you got a point.

[pavel_lishin]

> Its a valid question, clearly they weren't making enough money to survive as a proper business.

Is that the case? They were bought by Microsoft, but does that mean they weren't making enough money before?