3 ms·
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
by 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 agoGoogle 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 agoI 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.