|
shrike82 posted:Speaking of Twitter, reminder that they've actually announced that their user base is shrinking twitor is useful only as a platform for shameless self-advertisement.
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:08
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
shrike82 posted:i've never heard of them. looking at their website, it's just another e-commerce retail site? Pretty much. They also blew millions for a Super Bowl ad last year where, I poo poo you not: it was all about people's heads exploding at the realization they could buy stuff online and have it delivered to them. As if it were some sort of novel concept. You know, a decade after amazon.com
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
disruptive, n ~ emulating the actions of others in a familiar context
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Note that this isn't just a board member, this is Marc Andreesen, founder of Netscape, who is now one of the leading Silicon Valley VCs. His opinions have sway not just over Facebook, but over who gets funded and who doesn't. Yeah I had a feeling reading up on this guy and his opinions would just make me mad, but I like being mad, and sure enough...
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
in terms of actually interesting questions, i'm pretty keen to see whether YouTube Red succeeds or not. for the uninitiated, there's been a bit of bubble when it comes to YouTube content creation with Google subsidizing the big YouTube stars; ad rates for YT videos have been nose-diving.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Someday in our lifetimes you're going to see Youtube Superstars organizing to form a union
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
PewDiePie is gating some of his videos now - $3 a video. Pretty curious whether teens are going to pay
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:PewDiePie is gating some of his videos now - $3 a video. Pretty curious whether teens are going to pay Why would they is it difficult to pirate videos all of a sudden?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:in terms of actually interesting questions, i'm pretty keen to see whether YouTube Red succeeds or not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
nah the YouTube org is structured somewhat differently from Google. there is a lot of focus on developing content creators. that's why you have droves of "partnerships managers" who basically wrangle the bigger stars
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:nah the YouTube org is structured somewhat differently from Google. there is a lot of focus on developing content creators.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Yeah, and that's been true for most of the history of post-merger YouTube, but they haven't succeeded yet. Not sure posting a simple history of YT says anything. Hey, I'm not sure whether they'll succeed in selling content. All I'm saying is that they're not structured like the rest of Google like you suggested.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Not sure posting a simple history of YT says anything. The reason I posted the link was to call out the number of times they've tried selling content with little-to-no success. They've had a video-renting service for 5 years; who uses YouTube instead of Netflix, Amazon, or the individual content-producing streaming services? In 2013 they launched YouTube Comedy Week, which was pretty much ignored and never had a followup. The last two CEOs installed at YouTube were long-term Google insiders; the current CEO, Susan Wojcicki, is the Google Ads and Marketing specialist who originally championed the Youtube buyout: she's a monetizer, not a creator. The previous CEO, Salar Kamangar, was employee #7 at Google and had been head of Google Apps before transferring; again, not a person with a history in media. The Youtube organization is not promoting CEOs from within, but instead hiring senior executives with a Google pedigree.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Frankly the whole paid video thing is getting out of hand. Between Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Video, I'd be reluctant to subscribe to even more $10/month-ish things and frankly I can't be bothered to janitor even more accounts either. Centralise all the things, $20/month for the one true video streaming site.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Hmm, it very well could be a monetizing attempt that fails. Still will be interesting given how high profile PDP is and the extent of the effort at creating paid only video content (using FoD).
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Who is pdp anyway, one of those guys famous for being famous?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
arguably the biggest online star (defo YT's biggest). took in 12 million last year
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
I'm subscribed because you get google play music on top
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Who is pdp anyway, one of those guys famous for being famous? This is Youtube Red's headliner from the spam they sent out about it just a day or two ago: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Who is pdp anyway, one of those guys famous for being famous? Scarecams, LPs, pulling facial expressions, wacky voices, rampant misogyny and rape jokes until it threatened his revenue due to goons calling him on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Who is pdp anyway, one of those guys famous for being famous? Children's entertainer on youtube, he plays video games while 8-14 year olds watch him which is btw why everyone over 14 hates him
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Typo posted:Children's entertainer on youtube, he plays video games while 8-14 year olds watch him
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Scarecams, LPs, pulling facial expressions, wacky voices, rampant misogyny and rape jokes until it threatened his revenue due to goons calling him on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFbVKL-Meo0
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
blowfish posted:error 404 http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/02/facebook-and-the-new-colonialism/462393/
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
the whiteness of the entire tech industry (with a substantial Asian minority) really comes thru when you spend time in the Bay Area. remember being out for drinks one night in SF with ex-classmates and someone joking about blacks in the industry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:the whiteness of the entire tech industry (with a substantial Asian minority) really comes thru when you spend time in the Bay Area. The bay area isn't all that great representation of the entire tech industry But yeah the autisim rates in west coast tech hubs is really something to behold
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
well, given the focus is on unicorns, uber etc. think you can treat tech industry as shorthand for that side of things. no one gives a poo poo about enterprise IT or the more sedate b2b outfits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Bastard Tetris posted:As an (ex)-insider: I don't know how much they were exaggerating, but the C-level folks were the cart driving the horse when it came to a lot of things, they wanted to be first to market and wanted to sell a lab-developed test as an advisory tool while working with physicians, which is all good and legal. As far as I could tell from where I sat this was a letter they got from FDA in November, it got addressed, and a few pre-clinical tests are underway. Full disclosure, I work for a competitor. They were exaggerating quite a bit. Current sequencing technology is too noisy to detect circulating tumor DNA reliably. There just isn't enough ctDNA in the blood at early stages. Either the cancer is further along (at least stage 2) or the test will require more blood & sequencer time. Both of the latter drive up the cost of the test. Based on the prices on their website, they probably are either taking a HUGE loss or don't have a reliable test.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
I know we're supposed to move on from locationchat, but even if you restrict yourself to democrat-run states there are plenty of viable lower cost tech hubs - most of which are already getting investment and are not cultural Siberias. Chicago, Boston, Minneapolis, Vegas, Philly, Denver...
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
size1one posted:Full disclosure, I work for a competitor. Neither would surprise me. I'm so glad I'm out of that mess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:I know we're supposed to move on from locationchat, but even if you restrict yourself to democrat-run states there are plenty of viable lower cost tech hubs - most of which are already getting investment and are not cultural Siberias. Chicago, Boston, Minneapolis, Vegas, Philly, Denver... Indianapolis likes to fantasize about it but we're too controlled by right wing lunatics to follow through on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:I know we're supposed to move on from locationchat, but even if you restrict yourself to democrat-run states there are plenty of viable lower cost tech hubs - most of which are already getting investment and are not cultural Siberias. Chicago, Boston, Minneapolis, Vegas, Philly, Denver... Boston isn't cheap these days
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Boston isn't cheap these days
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Based on the dot-com wave, stockholders buy expecting Facebook-style (at the time it was Amazon-style IIRC) growth, and they panic at any sign that the growth curve is tapering off. If you can't become rich holding the stock, better sell it off and buy something that *can* make you rich. Lowering your earnings expectations is a classic way to panic investors. (Earnings predictions are such a crazy dance anyway; back in dot-com it was expected for companies to inform finance insiders of their *real* predictions, leading to the "whisper numbers". I have no idea if this still happens.) Sometimes the behavior of investors makes me wonder if they are not actually human but instead some sort of ungulate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:Neither is Denver. Still not nearly as expensive as SF. I think Seattle's another hub. It never went bubble mode for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I think Seattle's another hub. It never went bubble mode for some reason. There is most certainly a property bubble in Seattle due to a confluence of Amazon/Facebook/Google and loving NIMBYs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
I haven't been there a year but it still seemed pretty cheap to me. 2.5 grand for a 1BR downtown.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I haven't been there a year but it still seemed pretty cheap to me. Is this sarcastic, or are you that out of touch as to what "cheap" means to most people?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
I'm comparing it with the other major hubs like SF and NYC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
In the dot-com era I very briefly (6 months) worked for an investment bank, on the infrastructure side. The actual movers and shakers were quite blunt about how little they cared what happened to a stock after they brought it public. Their job was to make $$$$ for the investment bank and coincidentally some of the founders at the IPO, to give the company a couple of Buy ratings, and then to cut the company loose. Some investors* buy invest pre-IPO and then dump most, if not all, of the shares at the IPO; they don't think the stock is a long-term win, they just want to make the quick profit. * You have to be what used to be a "sophisticated investor", now a "qualified investor" to be allowed to invest at this stage. There are several different criteria, but two of them boil down to "having more than $1M net worth" and "having more than $200K yearly income".
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:35
|
|