Jason Bosco's post celebrates the milestone of his company, SendGrid, achieving profitability instead of relying on venture capital funding. He emphasizes the deliberate choice to prioritize building a sustainable and profitable business from the ground up, highlighting the benefits of controlling their own destiny and focusing on customer needs. This approach, while potentially slower in terms of rapid scaling, allowed them to build a stronger foundation and ultimately led to a more rewarding outcome in the long run. The post implicitly contrasts the often pressured, growth-at-all-costs mentality of VC-backed startups with SendGrid's more measured, organic path to success.
The original poster asks how other B2C SaaS businesses handle VAT/sales tax accounting, specifically mentioning the complexity of varying rates and rules based on customer location. They're looking for automated solutions and wondering if incorporating in a specific tax-friendly jurisdiction would simplify things. Essentially, the poster is seeking advice on streamlining their sales tax compliance for a global customer base.
The Hacker News comments discuss various approaches to handling VAT/sales tax for B2C SaaS. Several recommend using services like Quaderno, Paddle, or FastSpring, which automate tax calculation and compliance. Some users suggest thresholds for registering in different jurisdictions, while others emphasize the importance of consulting with a tax advisor, especially as businesses scale and cross-border transactions increase. A few commenters detail their own experiences, highlighting the complexity of managing tax rules across different regions and advocating for simplified, global tax solutions. Some discuss the nuances of the EU's VAT Mini One Stop Shop (MOSS) system. Finally, some users suggest calculating taxes based on the customer's billing address rather than payment method location for more accuracy.
Cenote, a Y Combinator-backed startup, launched a back-office automation platform specifically designed for medical clinics. It aims to streamline administrative tasks like prior authorizations, referrals, and eligibility checks, freeing up staff to focus on patient care. The platform integrates with existing electronic health record (EHR) systems and uses AI to automate repetitive processes, reducing manual data entry and potential errors. Cenote intends to help clinics improve efficiency, reduce costs, and enhance revenue cycle management.
The Hacker News comments express cautious optimism towards Cenote, praising its focus on automating back-office tasks for medical clinics, a traditionally underserved market. Several commenters point out the complexities and challenges within this space, including HIPAA compliance, intricate billing procedures, and the difficulty of integrating with existing, often outdated, systems. Some express concern about the startup's ability to navigate these hurdles, while others, particularly those with experience in the medical field, offer specific feedback and suggestions for features and integrations. There's also a discussion around the competitive landscape, with some questioning Cenote's differentiation from existing players. Overall, the sentiment is that if Cenote can successfully address these challenges, they have the potential to tap into a significant market opportunity.
Bild AI is a new tool that uses AI to help users understand construction blueprints. It can extract key information like room dimensions, materials, and quantities, effectively translating complex 2D drawings into structured data. This allows for easier cost estimation, progress tracking, and identification of potential issues early in the construction process. Currently in beta, Bild aims to streamline communication and improve efficiency for everyone involved in a construction project.
Hacker News users discussed Bild AI's potential and limitations. Some expressed skepticism about the accuracy of AI interpretation, particularly with complex or hand-drawn blueprints, and the challenge of handling revisions. Others saw promise in its application for cost estimation, project management, and code generation. The need for human oversight was a recurring theme, with several commenters suggesting AI could assist but not replace experienced professionals. There was also discussion of existing solutions and the competitive landscape, along with curiosity about Bild AI's specific approach and data training methods. Finally, several comments touched on broader industry trends, such as the increasing digitization of construction and the potential for AI to improve efficiency and reduce errors.
This 2010 essay argues that running a nonfree program on your server, even for personal use, compromises your freedom and contributes to a broader system of user subjugation. While seemingly a private act, hosting proprietary software empowers the software's developer to control your computing, potentially through surveillance, restrictions on usage, or even remote bricking. This reinforces the developer's power over all users, making it harder for free software alternatives to gain traction. By choosing free software, you reclaim control over your server and contribute to a freer digital world for everyone.
HN users largely agree with the article's premise that "personal" devices like "smart" TVs, phones, and even "networked" appliances primarily serve their manufacturers, not the user. Commenters point out the data collection practices of these devices, noting how they send usage data, location information, and even recordings back to corporations. Some users discuss the difficulty of mitigating this data leakage, mentioning custom firmware, self-hosting, and network segregation. Others lament the lack of consumer awareness and the acceptance of these practices as the norm. A few comments highlight the irony of "smart" devices often being less functional and convenient due to their dependence on external servers and frequent updates. The idea of truly owning one's devices versus merely licensing them is also debated. Overall, the thread reflects a shared concern about the erosion of privacy and user control in the age of connected devices.
Workflow86 is an AI-powered platform designed to streamline business operations. It acts as a virtual business analyst, helping users identify areas for improvement and automate tasks. The platform connects to existing data sources, analyzes the information, and then suggests automations or generates code in various languages (like Python, Javascript, and APIs) to implement those improvements. Workflow86 aims to bridge the gap between identifying business needs and executing technical solutions, making automation accessible to a wider range of users, even those without coding expertise.
HN commenters are generally skeptical of Workflow86's claims. Several question the practicality and feasibility of automating complex business analysis tasks with the current state of AI. Some doubt the advertised "no-code" aspect, predicting significant setup and customization would be required for real-world use. Others point out the lack of specific examples or case studies demonstrating the tool's efficacy, dismissing it as vaporware. A few express interest in seeing a more detailed demonstration, but the overall sentiment leans towards cautious disbelief. One commenter also raises concerns about data privacy and security when allowing a tool like this access to sensitive business information.
Trellis is a YC-backed startup building a platform to simplify and automate legal processes for startups, initially focusing on Delaware incorporations. They aim to make legal tasks like forming a company, issuing stock options, and managing cap tables as easy as possible, reducing the time and cost typically associated with these processes. Trellis is currently hiring engineers and designers to join their team.
Commenters on Hacker News express skepticism about the value proposition of Trellis, questioning whether automating social media for local businesses is truly a significant pain point. Some argue that the cost likely outweighs the benefits for small businesses, especially given existing free or low-cost scheduling tools. Others point out the difficulty in creating engaging, authentic social media content automatically, suggesting that genuine interaction is more effective than automated posts. The limited customization options within Trellis are also criticized. A few commenters offer alternative solutions like Buffer or Hootsuite, implying that Trellis doesn't offer enough differentiation to justify its existence. Finally, several commenters note the potential for abuse and spam if the platform isn't carefully managed.
The original poster is exploring alternative company structures, specifically cooperatives (co-ops), for a SaaS business and seeking others' experiences with this model. They're interested in understanding the practicalities, benefits, and drawbacks of running a SaaS as a co-op, particularly concerning attracting investment, distributing profits, and maintaining developer motivation. They wonder if the inherent democratic nature of co-ops might hinder rapid decision-making, a crucial aspect of the competitive SaaS landscape. Essentially, they're questioning whether the co-op model is compatible with the demands of building and scaling a successful SaaS company.
Several commenters on the Hacker News thread discuss their experiences with or thoughts on alternative company models for SaaS, particularly co-ops. Some express skepticism about the scalability of co-ops for SaaS due to the capital-intensive nature of the business and the potential difficulty in attracting and retaining top talent without competitive salaries and equity. Others share examples of successful co-ops, highlighting the benefits of shared ownership, democratic decision-making, and profit-sharing. A few commenters suggest hybrid models, combining aspects of co-ops with traditional structures to balance the need for both stability and shared benefits. Some also point out the importance of clearly defining roles and responsibilities within a co-op to avoid common pitfalls. Finally, several comments emphasize the crucial role of shared values and a strong commitment to the co-op model for long-term success.
Summary of Comments ( 10 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43406293
HN commenters largely discussed the merits and drawbacks of bootstrapping vs. VC funding. Several pointed out the inherent bias in Jason Bosco's original tweet, noting that he's incentivized to promote bootstrapping as a founder of a bootstrapped company. Others argued that profitability allows for more control and long-term vision, while VC funding enables faster growth, albeit with potential pressure to prioritize investor returns over other goals. Some users shared personal experiences with both models, highlighting the trade-offs involved. A few questioned the longevity of Bosco's "forever company" aspiration in a constantly evolving market. The idea of "ramen profitable," where founders earn just enough to survive, was also discussed as a viable alternative to both VC funding and robust profitability.
The Hacker News post "Are you VC-funded? No, we're profitable" (linking to a tweet about a company proudly proclaiming its profitability) sparked a discussion with several compelling comments. Many commenters expressed appreciation for the company's focus on profitability over growth-at-all-costs, viewing it as a refreshing counterpoint to the prevailing startup narrative. Some highlighted the long-term sustainability and resilience that profitability offers, particularly in uncertain economic times.
Several commenters delved into the nuances of "profitable," questioning whether it referred to gross profit, operating profit, or net profit, and emphasizing the importance of clarifying the specific type of profitability being claimed. Others discussed the potential trade-offs between prioritizing profitability and pursuing rapid growth, acknowledging that while profitability can be a strength, it might also limit a company's ability to aggressively capture market share.
A few commenters shared anecdotal experiences, either from their own businesses or from observing other companies, about the benefits and challenges of bootstrapping versus seeking VC funding. These anecdotes provided real-world context to the broader discussion about different funding models and their implications for company strategy and culture.
Some commenters also touched upon the signaling effect of proclaiming profitability, suggesting that it could be a way to attract a different type of investor or customer, one who values stability and sustainable growth over rapid scaling. There was also discussion about the potential for a shift in investor sentiment, with more investors potentially favoring profitable businesses over those focused solely on growth. Finally, a few commenters offered practical advice for companies aiming for profitability, such as focusing on customer acquisition cost and lifetime value.