Comment by gcanyon
4 months ago
$116 million is a pretty nice payday for a product that never remotely lived up to the hype and had, by the end, negative numbers of customers.
4 months ago
$116 million is a pretty nice payday for a product that never remotely lived up to the hype and had, by the end, negative numbers of customers.
No one is getting paid. Everyone involved is taking a loss. Humane turned $200M of venture capital into a $100M company. At best, some investors are getting $0.50 on the dollar.
Do people in the company need to pay back their salaries ?
I doubt so, that's 100M+ USD that disappeared.
This is a non sequitur. The original comment referred to the $116M HP paid to acquire the assets. None of that was paid to employees.
Yes, Humane burned through $200M of investor capital, and some of it was spent on salaries for employees. The employees likely accepted lower cash salaries than were otherwise competitive, in exchange for equity which is now worthless. What is your point exactly?
Are you suggesting the employees pulled a fast one somehow because the investors paid their salaries? That’s, obviously, how venture-backed startups work, and everyone involved (especially the investors) is very aware of the trade. In exchange, the investors own much more of the company than the employees and have a much higher upside potential if the company succeeds.
4 replies →
Humane raised a total of $241M from VCs. It is pretty much guaranteed that no employee at the company, and not even the founders, will see a single dollar of that $116M. Investors always get first dibs.
Those founders milked their “ex Apple” creds to the limit. I was at Apple and they were just bozos
Are you saying Apple are bozos, or that you were at Apple at the same time the Humane founders were and they specifically were bozos?
1 reply →
Why was Imran fired from Apple?
1 reply →
Those are some sad numbers.
>negative numbers of customers
You're being facetious, right? Or is there indeed some definition of customers that allows for negative numbers?
Referring to the fact that they were apparently taking more returns than sales by the end. So not negative in total, but over a given timeframe. (hence: "by the end")
Ah, thanks for clarifying. Reminds me of that joke where a mathematician watches 2 people entering a house and then 3 people leaving it, concluding that there's now -1 people in the house.
2 replies →