3 ms·

At ~25-30 min they talk about "content club" as a business. The Wired guys propose this could be a +4$ billion biz. Gates laughs them off. Now, today we have th

At ~25-30 min they talk about "content club" as a business. The Wired guys propose this could be a +4$ billion biz. Gates laughs them off. Now, today we have the numbers: - As of May 2018, Apple Music had 50 million paying subscribers worldwide. https://www.statista.com/statistics/604959/number-of-apple-music-subscribers/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/604959/number-of-apple-m... - Apple Hits $10B in Revenue From Services Like iTunes https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/apple-hits-10-billion-revenue-services-like-itunes-1157173 https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/apple-hits-10-billion...

dpandya 8y ago
This seems like a questionable comparison. Apple Music, et al. license content and there are few companies that are able to do this. This creates a barrier to entry that wasn't present for the "content clubs" Gates discusses. In fact, his primary point is that due to the lack of a barrier to entry in the market and no accumulating advantage of any kind, there wouldn't be a single dominant player.
- Torwald 8y ago
  Gates doubted verbatim that the whole industry would exceed 4$ billion in total, thus no single player could reach that point. > Apple Music, et al. license content and there are few companies that are able to do this. This creates a barrier to entry that wasn't present for the "content clubs" Gates discusses. That's not true, because Apple licensing anything is still not a barrier to entry into that market even today. Also, such licensing wasn't available to anybody back then. > In fact, his primary point is that due to the lack of a barrier to entry in the market and no accumulating advantage of any kind, there wouldn't be a single dominant player. No, that was another point he made. The fragmentation of the market and he was certainly right on that one. However, that was still not the point he mad I was talking about, the total size of the market. Also notice, I didn't inter
- coldtea 8y ago
  >In fact, his primary point is that due to the lack of a barrier to entry in the market and no accumulating advantage of any kind, there wouldn't be a single dominant player. Well, we have at best 2-3 "dominant players" in each field, so not much better. And doesn't already Kindle dominate in eBooks? Surely iBooks is not that much of competition.
tjoff 8y ago
So, only the whole world had to change first?
- Torwald 8y ago
  To change what for? I don't understand your question.
  - tjoff 8y ago
    For it to be a viable business.
    - Torwald 8y ago
      No, it didn't have to. The journos ask Gates why he enters into that field (with MSNBC) if he can't see a 4$ billion business in it. He then says: while we won't make those 4 billions (we are making with software), we believe we still can have a profitable business. I don't know if MSNBC was profitable at that time, but many such businesses were (and still are.) The question was about the overall size of the industry.
      - tjoff 8y ago
        > The question was about the overall size of the industry. And to me it seems he was spot on. The whole world and industry had to change before anyone could achieve that. Your own links tell how much the growth has been in recent years. The interview was in 1996.
        Torwald 8y ago
        Yes, he assessed the situation back then correctly. That was not hard to do. He said it himself in the interview "do the math" to indicate how this was a no brainer. What he didn't foresee was that the world would change in a way that makes a +4$ billion "content club" business viable. The journalists don't put their cards on the table. Were they pressing him so much because they thought a +4$ billion "content club" was possible? This is not clear from the video. If they thought so, was this out of naiveté or foresight? Of course I can't tell, but back then Wired was much better than today, to say the least.

dpandya 8y ago

This seems like a questionable comparison. Apple Music, et al. license content and there are few companies that are able to do this. This creates a barrier to entry that wasn't present for the "content clubs" Gates discusses. In fact, his primary point is that due to the lack of a barrier to entry in the market and no accumulating advantage of any kind, there wouldn't be a single dominant player.

Torwald 8y ago
Gates doubted verbatim that the whole industry would exceed 4$ billion in total, thus no single player could reach that point. > Apple Music, et al. license content and there are few companies that are able to do this. This creates a barrier to entry that wasn't present for the "content clubs" Gates discusses. That's not true, because Apple licensing anything is still not a barrier to entry into that market even today. Also, such licensing wasn't available to anybody back then. > In fact, his primary point is that due to the lack of a barrier to entry in the market and no accumulating advantage of any kind, there wouldn't be a single dominant player. No, that was another point he made. The fragmentation of the market and he was certainly right on that one. However, that was still not the point he mad I was talking about, the total size of the market. Also notice, I didn't inter
coldtea 8y ago
>In fact, his primary point is that due to the lack of a barrier to entry in the market and no accumulating advantage of any kind, there wouldn't be a single dominant player. Well, we have at best 2-3 "dominant players" in each field, so not much better. And doesn't already Kindle dominate in eBooks? Surely iBooks is not that much of competition.

tjoff 8y ago

So, only the whole world had to change first?

Torwald 8y ago
To change what for? I don't understand your question.
- tjoff 8y ago
  For it to be a viable business.
  - Torwald 8y ago
    No, it didn't have to. The journos ask Gates why he enters into that field (with MSNBC) if he can't see a 4$ billion business in it. He then says: while we won't make those 4 billions (we are making with software), we believe we still can have a profitable business. I don't know if MSNBC was profitable at that time, but many such businesses were (and still are.) The question was about the overall size of the industry.
    - tjoff 8y ago
      > The question was about the overall size of the industry. And to me it seems he was spot on. The whole world and industry had to change before anyone could achieve that. Your own links tell how much the growth has been in recent years. The interview was in 1996.
      - Torwald 8y ago
        Yes, he assessed the situation back then correctly. That was not hard to do. He said it himself in the interview "do the math" to indicate how this was a no brainer. What he didn't foresee was that the world would change in a way that makes a +4$ billion "content club" business viable. The journalists don't put their cards on the table. Were they pressing him so much because they thought a +4$ billion "content club" was possible? This is not clear from the video. If they thought so, was this out of naiveté or foresight? Of course I can't tell, but back then Wired was much better than today, to say the least.