5 ms·

Didn't Larry Page and Sergey Brin got rich off of one deal? As far as "probably shouldn't have happened", what does that even mean, not in the literal sense but

Didn't Larry Page and Sergey Brin got rich off of one deal? As far as "probably shouldn't have happened", what does that even mean, not in the literal sense but there are how many people that have ended up either penniless or rich as hell due to things that "probably shouldn't have happened"?

jacquesm 10y ago
No, Larry Page and Sergey Brin got rich of making an incredible contribution to the world of knowledge organization and then continued to build on that. That's why Google is still around so many years later, and that's why they still own a good chunk of it. What is the last time you went to 'broadcast.com'? That deal shouldn't have happened because there was no substance to what was sold (ok, fault of the buyer, a certain company whose name starts with Y). For some more background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast.com
- jbigelow76 10y ago
  Ok, so you're saying there is no substance to "radio on the internet" (I assume that since nothing weird or shady jumped out at me from the wiki article). So by that same token there should be be no substance to "TV on the internet", a la Netflix but I don't think anyone would try and make that case. Regardless of net contribution to the good of society, one deal is one deal. Cuban wouldn't have gotten rich if he didn't have stock to sell to Yahoo (one deal), Brin/Page wouldn't have gotten rich if they didn't have and continue to have stock in Google (one deal). Everything any of them did afterwards is leverage the success of the first deal.
  - harryh 10y ago
    Google is a hugely profitable company used by 100s of millions of people. Broadcast.com was an unprofitable sham with around half a million users. It only got bought because it was 1999 and people were acting crazy. It was shut down completely within 3 years. Comparing the two is silly.
    - jbigelow76 10y ago
      I didn't compare Google to Broadcast, I compared the effect the outcome the cashout of both companies had on their respective beneficiaries to leverage subsequent deals and investments.
  - s73ver 10y ago
    "Ok, so you're saying there is no substance to "radio on the internet"" That's not what they said. They said that there was no substance to Broadcast.com specifically.

jacquesm 10y ago

No, Larry Page and Sergey Brin got rich of making an incredible contribution to the world of knowledge organization and then continued to build on that. That's why Google is still around so many years later, and that's why they still own a good chunk of it. What is the last time you went to 'broadcast.com'? That deal shouldn't have happened because there was no substance to what was sold (ok, fault of the buyer, a certain company whose name starts with Y). For some more background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast.com

jbigelow76 10y ago
Ok, so you're saying there is no substance to "radio on the internet" (I assume that since nothing weird or shady jumped out at me from the wiki article). So by that same token there should be be no substance to "TV on the internet", a la Netflix but I don't think anyone would try and make that case. Regardless of net contribution to the good of society, one deal is one deal. Cuban wouldn't have gotten rich if he didn't have stock to sell to Yahoo (one deal), Brin/Page wouldn't have gotten rich if they didn't have and continue to have stock in Google (one deal). Everything any of them did afterwards is leverage the success of the first deal.
- harryh 10y ago
  Google is a hugely profitable company used by 100s of millions of people. Broadcast.com was an unprofitable sham with around half a million users. It only got bought because it was 1999 and people were acting crazy. It was shut down completely within 3 years. Comparing the two is silly.
  - jbigelow76 10y ago
    I didn't compare Google to Broadcast, I compared the effect the outcome the cashout of both companies had on their respective beneficiaries to leverage subsequent deals and investments.
- s73ver 10y ago
  "Ok, so you're saying there is no substance to "radio on the internet"" That's not what they said. They said that there was no substance to Broadcast.com specifically.