Interesting idea. However, I'm not a fan of the overwhelmingly negative vibe this gives off. By this I mean there seems to be no effort made about any kind of constructive criticism or help, e.g. a way to offer feedback on the listed startups so that they could actually use it as a platform to learn from.
So far it seems to me that it's more of a "Haha, you didn't make it" page creator when it could actually become a force for good.
I don't like the negative vibes I get from http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/ instead giving tip how to stay up it's purposed to say if website is down.
It's normal that companies die. What advice would you give them?
'is it down for everybody or just me?' is a neutrally-framed status reporter. The 'vibes' I speak of are the way in which 'Dead Yet?' is, fundamentally by its name, presumptuous (in my opinion). Therefore I don't think you have a great analogy there but I do see your point that my 'feedback' point was perhaps a bit too general — it would just be nice to be able to review a startup (a small disqus comment thread on the page, for example) rather than just pointing the finger at its deadness.
I don't personally have generic advice off-the-bat for company-wide failure avoidance I'm afraid.
It doesn't come from a place of negativity. As I mentioned elsewhere, it can show how resilient a product is as well. A community for startup support is probably outside the scope of this site (and done much better elsewhere), but what would you like to see added?
pretty negative, reminds me of fuckedcompany.com back in about 2000 - that made it into a game, you could bet on which dotcom bubble companies were going to fail.
Anyone remember deathwatch[0] from the first dot com bubble?
It was based on actual financial statements "based on their reported liquid assets and loss rate. When the cash runs out, something bad for stockholders has to happen."
The weird thing is, at the time that statement was controversial. "We'll make it up in volume!"
This reminds me of an idea I had in mind a while ago.
It would've been similar to this (like some kind of "Startup Graveyard") but slightly more extensive: interviews with the founders and the lessons they learned from it, what "type" of failure they suffered from (misinterpreting the market, lack of skills, etc).
I ultimately gave up on the idea because none of the founders I contacted wanted to truly spill the beans on what went wrong (the best I tended to get was some vague PR mumbling).
I did set up something similar on postmortem.co (dead) that was being populated by subreddit r/shutdown plus other contributions, main problem was to get proper explanation on why they failed and not just the public statement.
Legal, reputation among other reasons force people to don't share why something failed. I'm convinced it would be a great resource for learning on all kind of areas.
Wasn't there one of these that turned into a service that then failed itself some time ago? I don't keep track but I seem to remember it from the past two years.
This Twitter bot (Deathwatch) kind of has the right idea, nice way to pseudo-automate the process at least. The downside though is that it can throw a lot of false positives, just because a startup stops tweeting from a particular account doesn't mean they've perished:
I predict that within 10-20 years we will have AI bots that automatically come up with ideas for bots (trivial versions of this surely are already possible) - and that also have an add-on that lets them monitor forums and post "thanks!" notes to any comments mentioning them. I'm curious what people like you, or your descendants, will be doing by then :-)
I lived through that era compared to then things might be tight but people are actually making money back then nobody was making money and web applications required teams of c/c++ people the burn rates were staggering.
Web apps did not require c/c++. Plenty of ASP, and Perl/CGI sites in those days. The burn rates were insane but it didn't have a lot to do with the developer resources required. For one thing there was no AWS so many web companies built their own data center an exhorbitant capital and operational expense.
I think the difference is public vs private money. If we are in a bubble (which I'm not sure of but let's assume yes for the sake of argument) the investors that stand to loose their capital are all "qualified investors." There are few public companies that are "frothy" this time. Personally, I think the fact that the public markets appear to still be functioning well is _why_ few startups are going for IPOs.
Of course, if startups do start to IPO and the public markets catch the over-valuation bug, then we could see a repeat of 2000. Barring that, I think a correction would not infect the markets at large and may drive more capital into the public companies that are not over valued.
No way to discuss the starts in question? I'd love a comment board under each name. I tried one or two; their websites were awful. Virtually unusable. Feedback might help them.
94 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 110 ms ] threadhttp://isdeadyet.deadyet.lol/
;-)
http://isisisdeadyetdeadyetcheckyetdead.deadyet.lol/
So far it seems to me that it's more of a "Haha, you didn't make it" page creator when it could actually become a force for good.
It's normal that companies die. What advice would you give them?
I don't personally have generic advice off-the-bat for company-wide failure avoidance I'm afraid.
It was based on actual financial statements "based on their reported liquid assets and loss rate. When the cash runs out, something bad for stockholders has to happen."
The weird thing is, at the time that statement was controversial. "We'll make it up in volume!"
http://downside.com/deathwatch.html[0]
It would've been similar to this (like some kind of "Startup Graveyard") but slightly more extensive: interviews with the founders and the lessons they learned from it, what "type" of failure they suffered from (misinterpreting the market, lack of skills, etc).
I ultimately gave up on the idea because none of the founders I contacted wanted to truly spill the beans on what went wrong (the best I tended to get was some vague PR mumbling).
Legal, reputation among other reasons force people to don't share why something failed. I'm convinced it would be a great resource for learning on all kind of areas.
Meh. I'll stick to reading what the winners have to say - or those still actively competing with them.
In any case, great domain name, haha.
http://deathwatch.io/
https://www.producthaunt.com
If you want to check a company's status, just go to the website. This seems like a cynical tool.
Thanks https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=pud
https://web.archive.org/web/20010203210800/http://www.fucked...
Of course, if startups do start to IPO and the public markets catch the over-valuation bug, then we could see a repeat of 2000. Barring that, I think a correction would not infect the markets at large and may drive more capital into the public companies that are not over valued.
:)