Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | prakster's commentslogin

Wonder what will it take for Deepak Chopra to stop his quantum psychobabble. Even this didn't do it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZXewVWUKAM


Oh god, watching that made me lose all faith in both sides. Maybe this is why he's so obsessed with the circle ;)


I love your idea. And there's a huge market of individuals living on Excel that will pay you for doing this. Congrats!


Thanks. I hope!


Solution: Self driving planes.


Why not?


Also, not $100M+, but ShipStation sold to Stamps.com for $75 Million in 2014.


Any recent examples in the $100 Million plus arena?


One reason these are rare: if a bootstrapped company is valued at $100+ million, a small minority investment - say, 10% - is very meaningful cash for the company yet involves relatively little dilution and little or no loss of control. It gets a lot harder to justify not raising something.

(And yes, a bootstrapped business worth over $100MM is probably generating a meaningful profit, but the founders may not be comfortable reinvesting it.)


It also helps build relationships and align incentives with powerful firms that can be very useful in arranging an exit and getting the best price for it.

Microsoft took a small mezzanine round right before they went public. They didn't need the cash, but it brought investment bankers on board so that they had an incentive to get the best possible price in the IPO. Similar story with Whatsapp; they didn't need the cash, but having Sequoia on board gave them a stamp of approval that probably helped their negotiating leverage both in attracting employees and in selling to Facebook.


Came across this site a few minutes back as an email referral. Supposedly pays you in gold. I've never heard of the company, and don't know whether it's legit.


We're building a tool that discloses shipping prices AND delivery dates up front, as soon as you add a product to the Cart.

Here's a popular site that uses it: http://store.hufworldwide.com/

Let me know what you think...


What, no. Tell me before I add to the cart, right in the product description page.

What kind of draconian world do I live in that I would need to add to the cart to compare prices.


Shipping(A+B) is typically less than Shipping(A) + Shipping(B).

In most cases shipping is a cost that's associated with an order, not with the item. It makes sense to show it in the shopping cart.


> Shipping(A+B) is typically less than Shipping(A) + Shipping(B).

In most cases shipping is a cost that's associated with an order, not with the item.

That's true, but they could provide the marginal shipping cost of an item before it's added to the cart:

Shipping(currentCartContents + thisItem) - Shipping(currentCartContents)

In many cases the marginal shipping cost would be 0.


Well, that's confusing too. If you show a shipping cost on the item, your average consumer would expect that they could buy just that item for that shipping price. After all, doesn't everyone hate the Amazon Add-On Program for exactly that reason? It's Prime but not really Prime.

What if you have multiple tabs open? If you add another product in the meantime then the shipping cost quoted would be totally inaccurate. Could be too high, could also be too low depending on how your order crosses the weight/size thresholds.

Also, that would mean that you have to total up the weights and hit the shipping API for every single page request. Right now you usually only get an icon that tells you "3 items in cart", sometimes not even that much. If you have multiple warehouses this gets even more complex, you essentially have an NP-complete optimization problem. That may not even be possible to do in real time, let alone on every page load.

I just disagree in general over the value of the feature here. There is a lot of potential for misinformation and confusion, and consumers are already trained that they go to the shopping cart to get the shipping price. The shopping cart (the order) is the quantum used for shipping costs and it makes sense to put it there.

Again, to echo others, I hate sites that make me log in and go through the checkout process to get a shipping cost. But there's nothing wrong with going to the shopping cart and typing in my ZIP.


I'm fine with Amazon's add-on program - it lets me get small low-priced items much cheaper than they would be if they were priced to cover the shipping cost.

For example, a 2 pack of Sharpie pens is $1.77 with "add-on" shipping, $3.09 from a non-amazon merchant with 1 week shipping, or $6.98 from Amazon for prime 2 day shipping.

If I'm not in a hurry, I can either add it to my cart and keep it there until I find $23 more stuff to purchase, or I can buy the $3.09 product and wait a week for it to arrive.

If I'm in a hurry, I can pay the $7 or keep shopping until I hit the $25 add-on shipping limit (which is usually not too hard to do, I can add laundry detergent or some other consumables that I know I'll need).

What's not to like? Fast shipping if I want it (and am willing to pay for it), slower shipping if I don't.

Still better than making a special trip to Office Max (a 20 minute drive) just to get a pen.


> Well, that's confusing too. If you show a shipping cost on the item, your average consumer would expect that they could buy just that item for that shipping price.

Displaying it as "If you add this item to your current order, it would increase the order's shipping cost by an estimated $0.00" ought to allay any such confusion.

> If you have multiple warehouses this gets even more complex, you essentially have an NP-complete optimization problem. That may not even be possible to do in real time, let alone on every page load.

The shipping cost of the items in the cart could be calculated once whenever the contents of the cart changes, and the number cached. So you'd be doing one shipping calculation per page load, for the contents in the cart plus the item being viewed. And NPC or not, I don't think that would be prohibitively computationally expensive in most cases. After all, people don't typically order thousands of different products, that might ship from any of hundreds of different warehouses, in a single online order. If it made someone more likely to click the "Add to Cart" button on a given item, it might be worth it. And you could have some threshold (number of different products on the order, for example) above which the marginal shipping cost is not calculated and displayed.


I think y'all are proving the appeal of "free shipping". Retailers provide convenience, and people expect that figuring out the nooks and crannies of shipping costs is part of the service.

If it were about cost and not convenience, Jet's algorithms would've beaten out Amazon.


Displaying it as "If you add this item to your current order, it would increase the order's shipping cost by an estimated $0.00" ought to allay any such confusion.

This seems like bad IA, and visually expensive.


I think the solution would be to create a system where:

1) we have a minimum amount to hit before the marginal shipping cost is $0,

2) build the shipping cost into our margins, and

3) advertise that the marginal cost is $0.


So basically Amazon's free shipping deal. Prime items if you're not a prime member over a certain $ amount gets free shipping.


;)


I think you're missing the point. The use case where I would want to see the shipping cost up-front is that I'm buying a single item and I don't care who I buy it from -- I'm browsing across a number of stores and will pick the one that gives me the best price (with the least hassle). In this case (purchasing a single item), there is never going to be a B -- I just want to know as easily as possible what it will cost to buy and ship this single product.

If I need to register in order to find that out, forget it. I'm browsing across multiple stores that I've possibly never visited before and never will again, I'm not going to register to all of them. If I need to add to the cart, you're pushing it. If somebody else can tell me upfront, they're ahead and more likely to win my business.

Based on only my own usage, if I haven't registered to a site I'm obviously not a regular buyer there and am most likely there to just buy a single item.


What if I just want A, and there is no B? It's straightforward to add a caveat that the shipping costs are for that item only and are not additive.


Now every page contains two prices and nothing actually adds up when you get to the final cost.


Shipping costs are not linear so they can only really be estimated from the entire cart


Then figure out how to bring the cart context to the product page in order to be able to say "Shipping will be +$2 if you add this to cart"


I imagine this could slow down the page noticeably, if you have to hit the shipper's api for every product.

EDIT: sibling comment pointed out, the origin warehouse may be unknown until you have the full order. so now you're figuring out which warehouse you'd hypothetically ship from if the customer bought each product on the page.


Look at the actual flow, it's not too bad, and it calculates shipping on your entire cart, not just the one item (which is what users want).


I think anyone who pays $32 for a T-shirt, whether free shipping or not, is an idiot.

But then again I might not be the target market.


I must be an idiot then.


Didn't mean to offend, but you can find them for orders of magnitude cheaper!

https://www.amazon.com/Fruit-Loom-6-Pack-Tucked-T-Shirt/dp/B...

6-pack for 12. That's $2 each, which is 4 (log 2) orders of magnitude less then $32.


I wear these types of shirts under other shirts, and I think they're priced correctly for basically being underwear, but I would be very surprised to find a $2 t-shirt that's good for more than that.


That's a fantastic tool. As a consumer, I love that. Good luck- I'd love to see that on the sites that I shop on.


Very cool! It fetches Geolocation from the IP. But the site says $15 (Intl), your shipping price says $29.60


Should be fine now. I think they were making some changes around the time you saw that aberration.


"...won't be seeing anything approaching 800 mph". So what would it be? 80 mph? What a cop out.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: