[buzzybee]

The opportunity already came and went. Four years in means four years of catching up to do. If you come at it with more funding and a larger company structure you might be able to kill DistroKid by burning through a lot of cash, but you won't achieve the same "bottom feeder profitability", and your company might go under afterwards.

Basically, the only productive way to challenge this company is to also go in solo and be tough as nails, and there are almost certainly less contentious niches you can take on if you want to do that.

[GrinningFool]

With more funding, long-term profitability is not a concern

[jyrkesh]

I don't understand this. Do you mean "short-term profitability is not a concern"?

My take was that DistroKid is already taking bare minimum profits, so even if someone enters the market with cash to burn, they're only fighting for a piece of an already small pie, and there's little guarantee that will recoup their burned cash.

[GrinningFool]

The argument against it from GP (if I read correctly) was it would not be profitable to do that.

My point was that profitability isn't a concern of highly-funded startups. Growth is. So if they can throw enough money at it and pull those customers away, they've met the definition of 'success' as seemingly applied by many VCs - fast growth and on-paper potential. The cost and loss is much less relevant.

I shouldn't have said "long-term" as it added confusion. I meant 'profitability' in general.

I don't necessarily think that the market is large enough to attract those well-funded startups, but we're talking hypotheticals at this point anyway...