Wait but he controls the price, not the subscriber number?
Like even if the issue was low subscriber number (which it isn’t since they’re losing money per subscriber, more subscribers just makes you lose money faster), that’s still the same category of mistake? You control the price and supply, not the demand, you can’t set a stupid price that loses you money and then be like “ah, not my fault, demand was too low” like bozo it’s your product and you set the price. That’s econ 101, you can move the price to a place where your business is profitable, and if such a price doesn’t exist then maybe your biz is stupid?
I believe our esteemed poster was referencing the oft-seen cloud dynamic of “making just enough in margin” where you can tolerate a handful of big users because you have enough lower-usage subscribers in aggregate to counter the heavies. which, y’know, still requires the margin to exist in the first place
alas, hard to have margins in Setting The Money On Fire business models
Wait but he controls the price, not the subscriber number?
Like even if the issue was low subscriber number (which it isn’t since they’re losing money per subscriber, more subscribers just makes you lose money faster), that’s still the same category of mistake? You control the price and supply, not the demand, you can’t set a stupid price that loses you money and then be like “ah, not my fault, demand was too low” like bozo it’s your product and you set the price. That’s econ 101, you can move the price to a place where your business is profitable, and if such a price doesn’t exist then maybe your biz is stupid?
I believe our esteemed poster was referencing the oft-seen cloud dynamic of “making just enough in margin” where you can tolerate a handful of big users because you have enough lower-usage subscribers in aggregate to counter the heavies. which, y’know, still requires the margin to exist in the first place
alas, hard to have margins in Setting The Money On Fire business models