• CameronDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I think your muddying sustainable and successful. It definitely can be successful, but its not sustainable.

    Its also high risk, especially if you can’t crank up the prices enough later

      • CameronDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        Sustainable implies that they can keep doing it forever without changing. Switching later means what they are doing is not sustainable. It might be successful, but its not sustainable.

        • Optional@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          There’s sustainable practices and sustainable businesses. The latter is what others are arguing. Undercutting competition to take over a market is a sustainable practice IF you can hold out long enough. I’d wager the country of China can hold out longer than General Motors.

          • CameronDev@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            But the business model has to change in order to survive. The company cannot undercut forever, it actually needs to change in order to survive. The business model of today is not sustainable. They may have a large warchest, they may be able to crush GM, but once they do, or the warchest runs out, the business model must change.

            If you want to make the argument that their overall plan with the later change is sustainable, thats fine, but this current phase is not sustainable.