My understanding is that the labs ran out of freely available data to train on a while ago, and now primarily rely on human data vendors such as Surge and Mercor to source their data.
My wife brought them to my attention recently because she heard about them from Scott Galloway, who was speaking highly of Bending Spoons on one of his podcasts. As she was explaining this to me, I said "It's just PE."
They must be doing some good PR/marketing, because, for some reason, "PE" isn't the first thing entering a lot of minds about Bending Spoons right now.
BendingSpoon isn't PE because they are not attempting a restructure to then exit out of the asset within a defined time period.
When BendingSpoon or IAC acquired an asset, it's meant to be held by them in order to augment their existing portfolio.
M&A isn't the hallmark of PE - restructuring an asset in order to exit out of it at a profit is.
The classic PE monetization strategy is to acquire an underperforming asset, restructure said asset, and then exit the asset at around 20% IRR.
BendingSpoons on the other hand is a holding company that is acquiring and consolidating stagnant but large SaaS platforms into a single mega-platform.
The economics are different as are the operational and organizational structures.
The classic PE strategy is to buy declining buy well known brands, borrow vast sums of money in the brands name, pay the PE firm huge consulting fees, and then bankrupt the acquired business.
Which isn't exactly what they seem to be doing but also isn't that far off.
Scotts point was that these brands have already declined, and that the only thing left is a very strongly loyal subscription base. That perked my ears up for sure.
The classic PE monetization strategy is to take an intangible asset and mine it: The one we all see is buying a quality brandname and mining it into oblivion. Plus various accountancy tricks to move the gold into the PE coffers.
In your example "very strongly loyal subscription base" is the asset.
Not really. They dramatically overhaul the products. Bloated staff are cut, old tech-debt-saddled systems are thrown out and rewritten. In some cases they basically just keep the brand and the database and rebuild the product around that, in a smaller and leaner manner.
That is the PE playbook - buy ok company, revamp things to make it more efficient and profitable. The main difference seems to be whether the owners sell the revamped company or not.
It’s executing a private equity (and conglomerate) strategy out of permanent capital. That makes it more similar to Berkshire Hathaway than a private equity fund. (It is also less levered than most private-equity funds, though more levered than most companies.)
Isn't it just a different form of private capital designed for the later stage of a tech company? I'm not saying its good, but I am not remotely surprised by tech's transition from growth/disruption/hiring to cost-cutting/M&A.
It is. They are also enshittifying Komoot and EventBrite. Also by default they acquire a company and fire all staff within the week. Fuck Bending Spoons.
Pre-bending spoons Komoot was a beautiful app and community.
You could operate it one handed with your brightness turned all the way down and easily get the info you needed.
Now when I pull it up mid ride to route home I have to click through multiple upgrade to premium pop ups with tiny exit crosses.
All good things etc etc
Founders decide they want to do other things with their lives all the time, and in the case of komoot reportedly exited at a €300m valuation for a company that had raised very little VC money, which is going to tempt most people no matter how much they hate popups...
is firing staff after acquisition inherently bad if it's the same staff/management that led to the app being devalued and losing users in the first place though
Labels literally negotiated their own royalty rates down in exchange for shares in Spotify. It’s the perfect way to push artists out of receiving earnings.
I think record labels would be first in line to buy Spotify if it was ever for sale.
Why do you think that a platform with so many customers as to be industry defining, with dozens of interface options, with a massive feature set, with a global footprint and basically flawless uptime requirements, could be kept running by two guys?
To be fair it does seem like most AI startups are now like this (particularly when it comes to constantly mentioning how hard they work and ignoring consumer markets).
I think he's just wired differently. Raw IQ is usually overrated IMO, but this is one of the cases where I believe the significant difference is critical.
Critical but maybe not sufficient. Hassabis claims to manage two separate workdays every day, the first spent in meetings in Deepmind's office, the second until late at night studying new papers. So not just high IQ but incredible energy too. And finally, as I understand, a highly competitive attitude.
I think this is probably due to people suffering from the just-world fallacy. Most folks like to believe that if you do the right things and consume the right stuff you'll have a long and healthy life when the fact of the matter is that luck/randomness plays a much larger role in your health than most people would like to admit.
One hundred percent. I work in film, and recently had an argument with a friend around this point. He's incredibly healthy, and frequently works a large number of unsociable hours. I was pointing out that filmmaking hours make no concession for family or age. He'd convinced himself that he'll have no more difficulty doing 80 hour weeks in his forties and fifties than he does in his mid thirties, because he 'takes care of himself'. The implication being that everyone could work those hours if they just ate better and held multiple martial arts belts as he does. It was no use pointing out that he'd confused cause and effect.
For set related jobs, the hours are the shoot. If the shoot runs long, everybody's on set. It's an exploitative - and in my view, completely unnecessary - culture. The marriages, parental relationships and health costs cannot be justified by the supposed necessity of dollar savings. But currently - especially in the US, film sets all to often work sweatshop hours. More enlightened practices, like 'French hours' (a ten hour day), are also possible. The films created under these conditions don't seem any worse, and the people involved are inarguably happier and healthier.
You can control your luck a bit though. Granted you could be in perfect health but roll a 1 five times in a row and get a heart attack when you are 40. Or you could be crushing junk food and alcohol but you just keep rolling 6s and make it to 80.
If you look at the sequence of events that happen to trigger a heart attack, it becomes really clear how big a role luck is, but still you can mitigate each step. Studying this stuff also makes your body seem like a walking time bomb.
That plus not realizing that dealing with your chronic illness can be as much or more than a full time job, and the people with them tend to know MOUNTAINS more than you do about it.
Yes, these are true, doing the right thing, eating well and taking caring of yourself is not a magical bullet.
However it's irrefutable that exercising, sleeping and nutrition improves your health.
Will it prevent you from ever getting cancer? no, but it sure helps.
My mother passed away from cancer, she always exercised and took care of herself, it made the quality of her life much better. Looking back, she would have suffered much more had she not done that.
The issue often manifests in victim blaming. They assume that because something bad has happened to someone then the someone must be guilty of some transgression. Its often done on an unconscious level and we have to check ourselves that we're not doing it.
You’re probably right but it’s also true that that is a very (probably unintended) cruel worldview that thought to the end claims all those suffering had it coming, and as such deserves to be called out and those having it should reconsider.
One should acknowledge the role genes/luck play in disease, while also admitting that there are a few foods about which there is more or less consensus they are very bad for your health. So you can roll your eyes if someone suggests eating kale sprouts will cure all your problems but don't just keep eating junk food as if the opposite of their take must be good.
This. I'm as exhausted as anyone about the latest macro/micro nutrient diet. But also, when I binge on a bag of potato chips, I assume (correctly) that I'll feel like shit later. Calorie dense food that's easily procured and eaten to excess was not part of our evolutionary path up to now. Every individual person is a cornucopia of variables though too, and one persons perfect diet would kill someone else. So advice is hard to give out, but there are clearly some broad guidelines to eating and health that help you mitigate bad dice rolls.
> one persons perfect diet would kill someone else
Besides allergies, that's not literally true, is it? Or would you say that allergies or severe intolerances are common enough that such dramatic diet fitness differences exist?
I think we're only beginning to appreciate just how sensitive our guts are to the abuse modern high-calorie food can dish out.
Honestly, given the extent to which many people's diets consist primarily of bleached and re-enriched wheat separated from the germ or simply refined corn, I think there are many more people who are slowly poisoned by their diet than realize it.
Yet there's plenty of hyperbole in my statement too. I don't think you could murder someone by making them eat your diet, unless it consisted of bags of broken glass.
reply