[larrik]

He's getting downvoted because he is commenting on the headline, and not the article. The article has absolutely nothing to do with how LivingSocial got to where they are, and everything to do with the investment that was just anounced. "What happened" is strictly referring to the details of that investment.

A cursory glance at the original article makes it obvious that his comment is irrelevant. It's just pithy snark against a company already dealing with false "news" reporting.

[j45]

For the record, I read the article. I forwarded it to colleagues interested in the space, and the only thing worthy of it for me was my comment -- don't start one of these without a business model.

How did it apply to the article? Everything they did, didn't ultimately find a sustainable and repeatable business model. Instead theres all this perceived market validation of "oh look, investors say we're valuable", instead of market validation that's sustainable and repeatable.

I don't know anyone there and mean no one ill will, but without this, it certainly makes people wonder how making businesses lose money with deals for people who never come back is something you want to repeat, or how it can educate customers to become better customers (and pay full price).

I appreciate your judgement of me to be "pithy", but it's not. Snarks annoy me just as much. You can jump to the conclusions that you want but it's often fair to ask what someone meant instead of deciding what I meant in your positive and constructive open-mindedness.

This place for me is about learning to create a real business and not the lame bantering about distractions from this one requirement of any successful startup.