tbf those investments weren't traded on a liquid market, and I suspect Founders Fund are less worried about short term setbacks than your average mutual fund or mug punter.
But of course we also know that Musk-run public companies are immune to normal dynamics of worrying about next quarter's returns (or even worrying about the CEO publicly torching his brand equity) so the very last thing I'd imagine happening is SpaceX becoming risk averse and profitability focused
That feels like a surprisingly weak moat though; costs have already fallen to the point where launch isn't the biggest cost of space hardware any more, the competition is hotting up, and whilst launch costs give Starlink an advantage over other LEO satcomms constellations, other countries have strategic incentives to underwrite the existence of that competition, and once those assets have been sent to space it's a straight fight for subscribers in a remote broadband connectivity market which is definitely real but also looks... actually not that huge, relative to a trillion dollar valuation, unless they're able to drop their prices to wired broadband levels without service degradation. Launch cadence is a bigger advantage for SpaceX than cost, but again something other entities plausibly will match, when the demand is there.
The real question is what comes first: viable commercial large scale infrastructure in space that might create new demand for SpaceX launches, or the competition?
SpaceX is pitching their own orbital data centres as a ready to go source of demand for lots and lots of Starship launches, but the unit economics of those vs boring old ground-based server racks and solar farms look dubious even before one considers just how convenient a justification it is rolling Elon's loss making businesses into the IPO.
The cadence point is understated. SpaceX launched 130+ times in 2025. The next closest was around 15. That's not a gap that closes in 2-3 years even with heavy subsidies, because it's not just the rocket, you need to account for the operational framework of doing it every 3 days.
the cadence is very important, but I don't think the operational framework is much of a moat (not having reusability and/or actual demand is a bigger obstacle to overcome). SpaceX went from 30 to >130 between 2021 and 2024, launching most of the satellites currently in orbit in the process.
You don't do that without pre-planning or being very very good at what you do, but most of the competition (including those that will fail) is targeting that. They don't need to scale as big or as fast as SpaceX to deliver enough comms satellites to orbit to kill any hopes of Starlink becoming a permanent low-latency connectivity monopolist. Plus of course most competitors in the connectivity space are able to spend a fraction of their overall hardware budget launching on SpaceX...
> If we take this as face value, and say that the absolute best case scenario is there are literally no other uses for AI but helping programmers program faster, given 4.4 million software devs, with an average cost to the company of $200,000 (working off the US here, including benefits/levels/whatever should be close), those 4.4 million devs with 20% productivity would save roughly 176 billion dollars a year.
I don't think that's necessarily out of line with struggling to return a profit to investors though: an individual company is only ever going to capture a tiny fraction of the productivity improvements it enables its customer base to make[1], its own cost base is unusually high for tech, and investors are seeking a 10x+ return on an $852B valuation for a company that isn't even the market leader in that segment (which isn't the only segment, but it's the optimum B2B one). You can have a great business with a great value proposition and a sustainable moat and still not generate the desired returns on investment at a $852B valuation.
[1]and that's productivity improvements over the best-known free models, not productivity improvements over reading StackOverflow
Yeah. $1.3B isn't scrappy startup pivots, it's the sort of money Google/Meta/Microsoft/Yahoo/Salesforce burn on strategic acquisitions. And those entities absolutely get and deserve the sneers when they "sunset" the product 6-18 months later having concluded that it wasn't even showing enough signs of being a market they should bother with keeping the lights on.
At least Sora was novel and technically impressive, I guess.
They called the project EmDash and launched it on April 1st with a blog which brags about how little effort it took to write because of agents before even saying what it is.
If the product launch involves dressing the engineering team up in duck suits and releasing to a soundtrack of quacking, it's really not surprising people are asking the guy they hid behind the Daffy mask on why he's dressed as a duck rather than what he learned about headless CMS architecture from being on the Astro core team...
I know that it's discourteous to write-off a potentially valuable project because the release post showed a lack of self-awareness, but I think it's indicative of the larger struggle taking place: that trust is decaying.
It's decaying for a lot of the reasons displayed in the post, like you described, but the post also:
- is overlong (probably LLM assisted)
- is self-congratulatory
- boosts AI
- rewrites an existing project (vs contributing to the original)
- conjures long-term maintenance doubt/suspicions
- is functionally an advertisement (for CloudFlare)
So yeah, maybe EmDash is revolutionary with respect to Wordpress, but it hasn't signaled trust, and that's a difficult hurdle to get past.
There's plenty of other comments saying this. It isn't that I don't understand, and need a clever metaphor.
But to run with your metaphor, can we, maybe, just ignore the quacking since we all know that's just how you get attention these days and instead focus on that other stuff? Because it seems like asking about the duck mask will never produce a satisfactory answer and instead turn into a debate on the merits of ducks.
Dare I suggest that this debate has become boring and beside the point. Unless someone on HN has been living under a rock they've already made up their mind about ducks.
Throw in the the bragging about slop and cleanroom clones to avoid AGPL, the name and April 1st launch date, and maybe the high priority afforded to agent-friendly crypto payment infrastructure if anyone was paying attention. Maybe they prompted the marketing agent with "how can you get HN to loathe a product as innocuous as an open source headless CMS?"
Other than that, it seems it might be a half decent headless CMS, if the bit of WordPress you want is its interface, and not the number of plugins and devs and not being tied to Cloudflare's infrastructure.
I met someone a couple years ago who was a U2 pilot (which are still in active service). He'd flown F-16s until he reached the point in the promotion ladder where flying stopped, then switched to U2s to keep being a pilot. After hitting 20 years, he was taking his retirement and training to fly Grumman S-2Ts with CAL FIRE.
Very down-to-earth guy who knew what he wanted and made his choices. Didn't at all seem like the sort to find edge-of-the-atmosphere flying a mystical experience.
Those particular subreddits are heavily populated by incels voraciously consuming the stories of relationship strife (real, distorted and purely fictional) to validate their belief that their relationship status is down to the evils of the opposite sex specifically and all relationships being doomed in general.
I'm not sure battling the Vatican over interpretations of an obscure philosopher who mentored him back when he was an undergrad is the easiest way of winning over the religious right. Most of whom will happily go along with generic arguments about Peter Thiel's portfolio being essential to defeat Communist China and the woke libs. Treating Eliezer Yudkowsky as an irrelevant nutter probably works better on people with all kinds of views on religion and politics than attempting to elevate him to the status of antichrist
Perhaps one unifying principle behind all the iterations of the Catholic church as social mores changed over time and its influence waxed and waned and was coopted by secular kingdoms, is that every single one of them might have written an article entitled "should Peter Thiel be burned at the stake", if someone had taken the time to explain Peter Thiel to them in terms they might understand. And concluded "yes, probably".
But of course we also know that Musk-run public companies are immune to normal dynamics of worrying about next quarter's returns (or even worrying about the CEO publicly torching his brand equity) so the very last thing I'd imagine happening is SpaceX becoming risk averse and profitability focused
reply