-
[QUOTE=MaxFly]
Again, Yahoo! did not make a mistake in purchasing broadcast.com... Without broadcast.com, they wouldn't have Launch... and Launch is one of their more successful services. In fact, Launch was one of the things that kept Yahoo afloat when Google took over the search engine market and Yahoo! began to flounder. Those at Yahoo! are quite happy that they purchased broadcast.com, and would do it again.
Should I keep going?[/QUOTE]
Not a mistake? If Yahoo did not make a mistake in purchasing broadcast.com, why did Yahoo try to purchase Youtube? They provide the same media-related services.... hmmm...
Also,
Last time I searched for Video, I went to Youtube, not Yahoo Launch. Shoot, I'll see a Google Video before I see a video on Launch.
When broadcast.com was sold for over $5 bil, and Youtube was sold for $1.75 bil, you really believe that Yahoo doesn't regret that move? Do you want to go into a thorough analysis?
-
[QUOTE=MaxFly]Those at Yahoo! are quite happy that they purchased broadcast.com, and would do it again.
Should I keep going?[/QUOTE]
In the United States, Yahoo's cash cows are Yahoo mail and Yahoo news, which is number 2 in online news. When it comes to video, Yahoo doesn't come close to Youtube.
Should I keep going?
-
Stern should be fired. He used to be a great GM, until this whole brawl thing. Now he's just showing his ass. He's made so many stupid rules in the past 2 years it's ridiculous. He is truly drunk with power. He's like a Jewish Nazi
-
[QUOTE=MaxFly] I don't believe that he's envious as you said... That's illogical. Broadcast.com and Yahoo!'s purchase of it is partly responsible for the proliferation of online video, and Cuban made more money off of Broadcast.com than the creators of YouTube will make from YouTube.
Should I keep going?[/QUOTE]
Broadcast dot com's short sighted business model protected it from copyright holders.
As a result, it didn't have nearly the same number of users as Youtube has now, yet it was bought for more than two times the price of Youtube.
-
[QUOTE=Y2Gezee]Stern should be fired. He used to be a great GM, until this whole brawl thing. Now he's just showing his ass. He's made so many stupid rules in the past 2 years it's ridiculous. He is truly drunk with power. He's like a Jewish Nazi[/QUOTE]
when the media and the fans make a big fuss about his rules, it brings more attention to the NBA. You really think that everything Stern does isn't pre-planned for marketing purposes?
shoot, last night, on tnt, i watched a 15 minute segment on the controversy of the new ball alone...
a friggin' ball!
last year, it was over shirts w/collars!
when you guys argue about having Stern removed, do you think that this upsets Stern, or could Stern actually approve of the controversy?
controversy adds an an element of interest to the game...
-
Yeah the controversies add media attention to the game. However, this quick technical thing is going to hurt the game.
I've seen over the past 2 days people freakin shrug their arms in manner of asking why and been T'd up. I saw the Sheed stuff 2night, he deserved it. But I just saw livingston walking away and shrug his arms, Im sure he wasn' t cursing or anything, and he was T'd up. This is bull****
-
[QUOTE=asd]Not a mistake? If Yahoo did not make a mistake in purchasing broadcast.com, why did Yahoo try to purchase Youtube? They provide the same media-related services.... hmmm...[/QUOTE]
Perhaps they want to corner the market. I would do the same thing. If I already own one type of multimedia service, why not own another service that functions differently and opens up even more options for my company and for my users... I'd expand Yahoo! Launch, or create another offshoot. As it stands, YouTube has all of the hardware and software in place, and it would be easy for a company like Yahoo! to build upon that and have the option of user created and uploaded media as well as the media Yahoo! features on Launch... that's just smart business. Also, you just happen to head off competition in the process.
[QUOTE]Also,
Last time I searched for Video, I went to Youtube, not Yahoo Launch. Shoot, I'll see a Google Video before I see a video on Launch.[/QUOTE]
That's your preference, but Launch has its fair share of users and the service has been very successful and predates most other sites that offer online video. Moreover, Launch is still going strong. YouTube will of course be more successful because it is more user oriented... People can upload and share their own videos and have others comment. But before youtube really gained momentum a year ago, I highly doubt that you were going there to search for video. However, prior to youtube, most people who wanted to catch the latest music videos or a few old videos went to Launch, and many still use the service.
[QUOTE]When broadcast.com was sold for over $5 bil, and Youtube was sold for $1.75 bil, you really believe that Yahoo doesn't regret that move? Do you want to go into a thorough analysis?[/QUOTE]
You need to understand the time difference. I explained this earlier. Broadcast.com was aquired years ago when online video was still relatively new. The price was going to be high... that's the nature of the market... New technology and software will be more expensive. However, Yahoo! benefited in that they were among the few to have this new technology and because of that, were able to attract many, many users, effectively making back the money they spent on that investment years ago... As of now, because of the adds they run before their videos, they're still making a lot of money on the service.
If Yahoo had waited and had not bought broadcast.com, they would not have Launch right now, and would not have had it for the lenghth of time it's been popular and making them money. By now, it's paid for itself and more. Yahoo wouldn't be as popular, internet video wouldn't be as ubiquitous as it is now, and the creators of YouTube may have very well been selling YouTube at a greater expense to the purchasing company. There are a number of dynamics involved, but broadcast.com was a timely purchace for Yahoo! and was well worth the price.
It's like if a company bought a certain brand of computer 2 years ago... By now, that brand of computer will be far less expensive... but you also have to factor in the benefits in productity from the initial purchase to the present. If the benefits offset the decrease in price, it was a good purchase. This is the case with Yahoo! Launch. The benefits the service has provided to Yahoo! far outweigh the difference between the cost of broadcast.com and You Tube over the amount of time Launch has existed.
-
[QUOTE=MaxFly]Perhaps they want to corner the market. I would do the same thing. If I already own one type of multimedia service, why not own another service that functions differently and opens up even more options for my company and for my users... I'd expand Yahoo! Launch, or create another offshoot. As it stands, YouTube has all of the hardware and software in place, and it would be easy for a company like Yahoo! to build upon that and have the option of user created and uploaded media as well as the media Yahoo! features on Launch... that's just smart business. Also, you just happen to head off competition in the process.
That's your preference, but Launch has its fair share of users and the service has been very successful and predates most other sites that offer online video. Moreover, Launch is still going strong. YouTube will of course be more successful because it is more user oriented... People can upload and share their own videos and have others comment. But before youtube really gained momentum a year ago, I highly doubt that you were going there to search for video. However, prior to youtube, most people who wanted to catch the latest music videos or a few old videos went to Launch, and many still use the service.
You need to understand the time difference. I explained this earlier. Broadcast.com was aquired years ago when online video was still relatively new. The price was going to be high... that's the nature of the market... New technology and software will be more expensive. However, Yahoo! benefited in that they were among the few to have this new technology and because of that, were able to attract many, many users, effectively making back the money they spent on that investment years ago... As of now, because of the adds they run before their videos, they're still making a lot of money on the service.
If Yahoo had waited and had not bought broadcast.com, they would not have Launch right now, and would not have had it for the lenghth of time it's been popular and making them money. By now, it's paid for itself and more. Yahoo wouldn't be as popular, internet video wouldn't be as ubiquitous as it is now, and the creators of YouTube may have very well been selling YouTube at a greater expense to the purchasing company. There are a number of dynamics involved, but broadcast.com was a timely purchace for Yahoo! and was well worth the price.
It's like if a company bought a certain brand of computer 2 years ago... By now, that brand of computer will be far less expensive... but you also have to factor in the benefits in productity from the initial purchase to the present. If the benefits offset the decrease in price, it was a good purchase. This is the case with Yahoo! Launch. The benefits the service has provided to Yahoo! far outweigh the difference between the cost of broadcast.com and You Tube over the amount of time Launch has existed.[/QUOTE]
cuban is not green with envy? please. cuban called google "moronic" for purchasing youtube at $1.65 bil. does this mean that cuban concedes that yahoo was being three times more moronic for purchasing broadcast at over $5 billion? or is there a sufficient time-related reason with this, too?
-
[QUOTE=asd]In the United States, Yahoo's cash cows are Yahoo mail and Yahoo news, which is number 2 in online news. When it comes to video, Yahoo doesn't come close to Youtube.
Should I keep going?[/QUOTE]
Prior to the advent of youtube, which is only a little over a year old, Launch was the place for online music videos. YouTube has taken over, and rightfully so, because of how useable it is, but YouTube has been burning through venture capital and really hasn't been making money. Not too long ago, when it came to video, not only didn't YouTube come close, it didn't exist. It makes no sense to wait for a technology that you don't know will come into existence, and even though hindsight is 20/20, Yahoo! would still buy broadcast.com for the benefits it has provided Yahoo! (in the form of Yahoo! Launch) over the years. It's just smart business. The benefits Launch has provided Yahoo far outweight the price of broadcast.com as well as the drawback of buying YouTube now and not having Launch for all those years.
-
[QUOTE=asd]Broadcast dot com's short sighted business model protected it from copyright holders.
As a result, it didn't have nearly the same number of users as Youtube has now, yet it was bought for more than two times the price of Youtube.[/QUOTE]
How long ago was broadcast.com bought?
-
[QUOTE=MaxFly]YouTube has taken over, and rightfully so, because of how useable it is, but
[/QUOTE]
Then, why would Cuban call Google "moronic" for purchasing YouTube?
[QUOTE=MaxFly]
YouTube has been burning through venture capital and really hasn't been making money.[/QUOTE]
yea, the amount of venture capital that they spent to keep their servers running for a year really compares to the amount that Google paid them
-
[QUOTE=asd]cuban is not green with envy? please. cuban called google "moronic" for purchasing youtube at $1.65 bil. does this mean that cuban concedes that yahoo was being three times more moronic for purchasing broadcast at over $5 billion? or is there a sufficient time-related reason with this, too?[/QUOTE]
Cuban's comments were related to copyright infingement problems... As it stands, he was correct in that regard. A company that bought YouTube and didn't work to eliminate copyright infringments would be in danger of large lawsuits. The problem with his argument is that no company would be that stupid. The first thing they would do is modify the service, work with distributors to allow use of their video, and remove video that violated copyright law. YouTube has been doing that a lot lately. Yahoo! wasn't sued by anyone when they bought broadcast.com... They modified the service to distrubute licensed multimedia, and then made tons of money running ads with that media...
-
btw, the amount that Youtube raised in venture capital is $11.5 million, which is less than 1 percent of the amount they received from google
-
[QUOTE=MaxFly]Cuban's comments were related to copyright infingement problems... As it stands, he was correct in that regard. A company that bought YouTube and didn't work to eliminate copyright infringments would be in danger of large lawsuits. The problem with his argument is that no company would be that stupid. The first thing they would do is modify the service, work with distributors to allow use of their video, and remove video that violated copyright law. YouTube has been doing that a lot lately. Yahoo! wasn't sued by anyone when they bought broadcast.com... They modified the service to distrubute licensed multimedia, and then made tons of money running ads with that media...[/QUOTE]
cuban knew about google's capabilities with adsense..
during the past week, YouTube was told to take comedy central videos off of their servers. a couple of days later, Google made some profit-sharing deals, and comedy central material is back on youtube.
-
do you agree with cuban in his statement about the "moronic" purchase? do you think that Cuban has better decisive judgment than Google?
-
[QUOTE=asd]Then, why would Cuban call Google "moronic" for purchasing YouTube?
[/QUOTE]
Again, I don't agree with Cuban's assessment because I don't believe that he has considered all of the possibilities, but it doesn't strike me as envious considering how illogical that emotion would be under these circumstances. I think he's a loudmouth at times who looks for things to rant about, but envy... no.
[QUOTE]yea, the amount of venture capital that they spent to keep their servers running for a year really compares to the amount that Google paid them[/QUOTE]
And this is why it is illogical for Cuban to be envious. He has done so much better than the guys at YouTube though his service wasn't as advanced, he didn't spend as much money as they did, nor have his site gain the type of fame as theirs. The reason he made so much money and deserved it was that he did it at a time when that type of service and technology was still new and more valuable than it is now.
-
[QUOTE=MaxFly]Again, I don't agree with Cuban's assessment because I don't believe that he has considered all of the possibilities, but it doesn't strike me as envious considering how illogical that emotion would be under these circumstances. I think he's a loudmouth at times who looks for things to rant about, but envy... no.
And this is why it is illogical for Cuban to be envious. He has done so much better than the guys at YouTube though his service wasn't as advanced, he didn't spend as much money as they did, nor have his site gain the type of fame as theirs. The reason he made so much money and deserved it was that he did it at a time when that type of service and technology was still new and more valuable than it is now.[/QUOTE]
so, by making the statement, he wasn't being envious, he was being short-sighted...
and this is the man that you want to replace Stern as commissioner of the NBA?
-
[QUOTE=asd]btw, the amount that Youtube raised in venture capital is $11.5 million, which is less than 1 percent of the amount they received from google[/QUOTE]
Exactly... prior to the purchase, youtube was losing money. Youtube had no long term business plan... their plan was to be bought, and they did a masterful job enticing companies to buy them. Their technology is fantastic. This is why it is illogical for Cuban to be evious of YouTube... In terms of money... amount spent to amount gained... netwise, he dwarfs YouTube...
-
[QUOTE=MaxFly]How long ago was broadcast.com bought?[/QUOTE]
Exactly! A LONG TIME AGO. With that in mind, factoring inflation, the thought of purchasing the dominant position in the online, video market for over $5bil is even more unfathomable after Google purchased the lead position in the market for just $1.65 Bil, many, many years later.
-
Sterns pretty good - just look at the fruit of his work.
its currently a pretty good product. Yes there is a couple of small issues, but overall hes done an excellent job.
I think it goes without saying he is a classy professional.
I think it goes without saying that Cuban is an immature person with poor self control and not much respect for authority
-
[QUOTE=asd]so, by making the statement, he wasn't being envious, he was being short-sighted...
and this is the man that you want to replace Stern as commissioner of the NBA?[/QUOTE]
so tell me for the last time, just to make sure...was it short-sightedness or envy?
-
[QUOTE=MaxFly]Exactly... prior to the purchase, youtube was losing money. Youtube had no long term business plan... their plan was to be bought, and they did a masterful job enticing companies to buy them. Their technology is fantastic. This is why it is illogical for Cuban to be evious of YouTube... In terms of money... amount spent to amount gained... netwise, he dwarfs YouTube...[/QUOTE]
i don't know if you know this, but when you have MILLIONS of users pouring into your site each and every single day, you don't need to be too concerned with your long-term business plan...eventually, money will pour in...they knew that the $11 Mil would be chump change
-
Give the ball a season- it if dodgey they get rid of it.
Dress code makes sense - I make about 40K for a multi million dollar business and have to dress business.
these guys make mutli millions themselves so should at least look professional
hand checking rule is good cos unskilled hacks cant gwet the better of talented players
Nice work Dave
-
[QUOTE=asd]so, by making the statement, he wasn't being envious, he was being short-sighted...
and this is the man that you want to replace Stern as commissioner of the NBA?[/QUOTE]
Yes, I believe he was myopic in his assessment... I'm not surprised that you're just getting that (though I've been saying it for some time); I'm not convinced that have been following this conversation. What I want you to do is go back and quote me on where I said that I want Cuban to be commissioner or that I want him to replace Stern.
You must be confused... You'll find that I said no such thing, nor have I hinted at it, and my posts in this thread bear that out. I entered this conversation to correct you on your false statements concerning broadcast.com as a "worthless dot com bust" and "one of the worst business moves EVER made during the dot com era." Those things simply aren't true. If you're going to attack someone, at least take the time to be accurate. That includes me as well as Cuban.
-
[QUOTE=MaxFly]Yes, I believe he was myopic in his assessment... I'm not surprised that you're just getting that (though I've been saying it for some time); I'm not convinced that have been following this conversation. What I want you to do is go back and quote me on where I said that I want Cuban to be commissioner or that I want him to replace Stern.
You must be confused... You'll find that I said no such thing, nor have I hinted at it, and my posts in this thread bear that out. I entered this conversation to correct you on your false statements concerning broadcast.com as a "worthless dot com bust" and "one of the worst business moves EVER made during the dot com era." Those things simply aren't true. If you're going to attack someone, at least take the time to be accurate. That includes me as well as Cuban.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure if you read this previous post, so here goes...
You asked, "how long ago did Yahoo purchase Broadcast?"
I said, "A LONG TIME AGO. With that in mind, factoring inflation, the thought of purchasing the dominant position in the online, video market for over $5bil is even more unfathomable after Google purchased the lead position in the market for just $1.65 Bil, many, many years later."
if you were not the one who said that cuban should be commissioner, fine, but someone did. to me, this is a messageboard, and that I find your pseudo-identities inconsequential and of little concern
-
[QUOTE=MaxFly]Yes, I believe he was myopic in his assessment... I'm not surprised that you're just getting that (though I've been saying it for some time)[/QUOTE]
the reason why i *just* got to that is b/c you led me to that point. i still hold to my original assertion that it was due to envy
-
[QUOTE=asd][B]Do you know how much NBA revenue has increased since stern became commissioner in 1984?[/B] Think about how much NBA players earn compared to non-athletes, such as your parents, and you're telling me that Stern should be fired? Currently, games are being televised on ABC, ESPN, and TNT across the entire nation, and internationally, too, and you're telling me that Stern should be fired? Stern is a legend in the business world and a vanguard of the NBA because of his work since 1984, and you're saying that he should be fired? Are you smoking crack?[/QUOTE]
:stupid:
You know there was this guy Michael Jordan, and he was pretty good, so I think it's safe to assume HE was the reason for the increase in revenue. Not dumbass Stern:banghead:
-
using the #s of users as a barometer of success, which is presently the standard for web apps/sites....comparing the number of broadcast's users and the number of youtube's users, broadcast was a failure, especially at the price that Yahoo paid for it...no if, and, or but
-
[QUOTE=BradMiller52]:stupid:
You know there was this guy Michael Jordan, and he was pretty good, so I think it's safe to assume HE was the reason for the increase in revenue. Not dumbass Stern:banghead:[/QUOTE]
Stern did ride his coattails, and I never said he didn't, but Stern has been a part of the overall management and viability of the NBA in the sports world
-new ball
-dress code
whatever else you have to add is of little matter...he should NOT be fired
-
I will give Stern a lot of the credit for the NBA's popularity. He did heavily promote the individual player in the NBA and it helps a lot.
-
[QUOTE=asd]Exactly! A LONG TIME AGO. With that in mind, factoring inflation, the thought of purchasing the dominant position in the online, video market for over $5bil is even more unfathomable after Google purchased the lead position in the market for just $1.65 Bil, many, many years later.[/QUOTE]
You're forgetting to factor in the benefits that having Launch for so many years afforded Yahoo! over the course of those years.
Now it's likely that some new technology or service will start up in a few years and sell at a price lower than YouTube, but will give the purchaser control over online video. There is still room for improvement... Better compression, smaller file sizes, better download and upload options, options for better video streaming and broadband management to and on portable handheld devices... It would be stupid to go back and say "Well Google really got fooled when they bough YouTube. This new technology has taken over and they were bought for much less." That's the nature of business and techology. Better technology arrives and takes the place of old technology. In the meantime, it's just smart business to take advantage of the available technologies. Launch had and is having a nice run. Without it, Yahoo! wouldn't have done as well as they have.
-
[QUOTE=asd]
if you were not the one who said that cuban should be commissioner, fine, but someone did. to me, this is a messageboard, and that I find your pseudo-identities inconsequential and of little concern[/QUOTE]
I just want to make sure that you understand that you were wrong in thinking that I supported Cuban as GM and if you were actually paying attention, you would not have made that mistake. When you're responding to the posts of many people on a messageboard, it pays to actually keep the arguments straight and know who is arguing what. When you don't, you get confused as you've demonstrated.
-
[QUOTE=asd]i don't know if you know this, but when you have MILLIONS of users pouring into your site each and every single day, you don't need to be too concerned with your long-term business plan...eventually, money will pour in...they knew that the $11 Mil would be chump change[/QUOTE]
And that's why I said "they did a masterful job enticing companies to buy them. Their technology is fantastic."
If you're going to debate this, you need to read through the posts more carefully.
-
[QUOTE=MaxFly]You're forgetting to factor in the benefits that having Launch for so many years afforded Yahoo! over the course of those years.
[/QUOTE]
I can pull up the numbers on Yahoo's profits. As I already said, the crux of the revenue comes from news, search and email, so it is reasonable to say much of that time, which you constantly mention, was spent reaching the breakeven point (over $5 Bil, if you forgot)
-
Stern didn't seriously want to increase the height o the basket
he simply was looking for a way keep little people in the game
he went and asked a knowledgeable person before making any decisions
that is what good leaders do
IMO that is good management
I don't agree with everything Stern does (duh) but this was handled properly
-
[QUOTE=asd]using the #s of users as a barometer of success, which is presently the standard for web apps/sites....comparing the number of broadcast's users and the number of youtube's users, broadcast was a failure, especially at the price that Yahoo paid for it...no if, and, or but[/QUOTE]
Again, you're displaying a myopic assessment of the company, perhaps even more so than Cuban's assessment of youtube. You can't compare broadcast's users in the past to youtube users now... There are a number of factors involved... one being that the number of people with high speed broadband in the past is miniscule to the number of users now. Add to that the fact that online video was still relatively new and that Yahoo! Launch hasn't updated the technology and you begin to get a more accurate picture. For what it was... a service that distributed video online (and innovation at the time), it did what was expected of it, and it was very successful.
-
[QUOTE=MaxFly]And that's why I said "they did a masterful job enticing companies to buy them. Their technology is fantastic."
If you're going to debate this, you need to read through the posts more carefully.[/QUOTE]
i don't know if you remember what you wrote prior to that, but you attempted to discredit youtube's success by mentioning its spending of venture capital in a weak attempt to prove broadcast's success...
[QUOTE=MaxFly]Prior to the advent of youtube, which is only a little over a year old, Launch was the place for online music videos. YouTube has taken over, and rightfully so, because of how useable it is, [B]but YouTube has been burning through venture capital and really hasn't been making money. Not too long ago, when it came to video, not only didn't YouTube come close, it didn't exist.[/B] It makes no sense to wait for a technology that you don't know will come into existence, and even though hindsight is 20/20, Yahoo! would still buy broadcast.com for the benefits it has provided Yahoo! (in the form of Yahoo! Launch) over the years. It's just smart business. The benefits Launch has provided Yahoo far outweight the price of broadcast.com as well as the drawback of buying YouTube now and not having Launch for all those years.[/QUOTE]
hey, it's understandable. it's getting late. you can forget things....
-
[QUOTE=MaxFly]Again, you're displaying a myopic assessment of the company, perhaps even more so than Cuban's assessment of youtube. You can't compare broadcast's users in the past to youtube users now... There are a number of factors involved... one being that the number of people with high speed broadband in the past is miniscule to the number of users now. Add to that the fact that online video was still relatively new and that Yahoo! Launch hasn't updated the technology and you begin to get a more accurate picture. For what it was... a service that distributed video online (and innovation at the time), it did what was expected of it, and it was very successful.[/QUOTE]
myopic? after comparing the number users and estimating the amount of time that it took yahoo to make the $5 Bil back, just to get back to neutral, the product fell short...
what else is there to review?
-
[QUOTE=asd]I can pull up the numbers on Yahoo's profits. As I already said, the crux of the revenue comes from news and email, so it is reasonable to say much of that time, which you constantly mention, was spent reaching the breakeven point (over $5 Bil, if you forgot)[/QUOTE]
And it's reasonable to assume that they've passed the breakeven point. You also have to take into account the Launch users who may have been directed to or became interested in other Yahoo applications and those who were familiar with Yahoo but became more active because of Launch...
-
[QUOTE=MaxFly]And it's reasonable to assume that they've passed the breakeven point. [/QUOTE]
and it probably took a considerable amount of time. the kind of time that you were so adamant in mentioning when you said attempted to prove broadcast's success by stressing that it was first to market...
[QUOTE=MaxFly]
You also have to take into account the Launch users who may have been directed to or became interested in other Yahoo applications and those who were familiar with Yahoo but became more active because of Launch...
[/QUOTE]
please. it's the other way around
:roll:
