2 ms·

> They are willing to have some expensive failures ($100MM-scale) if the successes will launch a "franchise" that makes sense, and definitely feels like they w

by holler 6y ago

> They are willing to have some expensive failures ($100MM-scale) if the successes will launch a "franchise" that makes sense, and definitely feels like they were building a rocket-sized dart to throw. it'd be interesting to see the breakdown on how much of that capital went towards engineering the app vs content/other.

gumby 6y ago
Well it was $2Bn not $100MM so don’t know how ppl will feel. Probably call it “Silicon Valley style” and disregard it. The Hollywood model spends most of that money on ppl and marketing, little on tech. K has no tech experience and W only a smidgeon despite her exec jobs (eBay & HP). So I would be shocked if they spent more than $25MM on their stack which is mostly conventional. I’m sure the rest was blown on marketing, high salaries, consultants, offices, and deals with actors.
- holler 6y ago
  thanks for the insight, that's really fascinating! > I’m sure the rest was blown on marketing, high salaries, consultants, offices, and deals with actors It sounds like the antithesis of "lean startup". Of course it could have worked out the other way if they had nailed market-fit. It does make me wonder if they could try to salvage the tech and try a slight pivot.
- pfranz 6y ago
  > K has no tech experience I mean, I'm not sure exactly how much credit to give him, but DreamWorks Animation had a lot of tech and he oversaw it for 20+ years. He stood up a brand new animation studio while the industry was digitizing, which means everyone used in-house tools because off-the-shelf stuff wasn't available. They purchased PDI, had been doing CG since 1980. They maintained a proprietary CG pipeline for decades and integrated multiple locations. This was during a time when the industry went from NURBS to sub-d, from basic direct lighting to global illumination to path-tracing--mostly using software written in-house. Not to mention the larger issues of asset management, data center scaling (power, water, and city requirements) and the staff and budgets to support all of that. At scales only a handful of other facilities were doing CG at, while competing for innovation, scale, and quality. I'm pretty sure Katzenberg and Whitman courted when she was at HP and they were DreamWorks' "technology partner." They worked together on things like a price-friendly color-accurate LCD monitor and the Halo video conferencing stuff. I know in the years before DreamWorks was sold to Universal there were Skunk Works projects working on phone apps. I imagine all of that was practice for this. I'm sure most of the money was on content and advertising. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by not having tech experience, but he definitely oversaw a lot and worked with people who had.

by holler 6y ago

gumby 6y ago

Well it was $2Bn not $100MM so don’t know how ppl will feel. Probably call it “Silicon Valley style” and disregard it. The Hollywood model spends most of that money on ppl and marketing, little on tech. K has no tech experience and W only a smidgeon despite her exec jobs (eBay & HP). So I would be shocked if they spent more than $25MM on their stack which is mostly conventional. I’m sure the rest was blown on marketing, high salaries, consultants, offices, and deals with actors.

holler 6y ago
thanks for the insight, that's really fascinating! > I’m sure the rest was blown on marketing, high salaries, consultants, offices, and deals with actors It sounds like the antithesis of "lean startup". Of course it could have worked out the other way if they had nailed market-fit. It does make me wonder if they could try to salvage the tech and try a slight pivot.
pfranz 6y ago
> K has no tech experience I mean, I'm not sure exactly how much credit to give him, but DreamWorks Animation had a lot of tech and he oversaw it for 20+ years. He stood up a brand new animation studio while the industry was digitizing, which means everyone used in-house tools because off-the-shelf stuff wasn't available. They purchased PDI, had been doing CG since 1980. They maintained a proprietary CG pipeline for decades and integrated multiple locations. This was during a time when the industry went from NURBS to sub-d, from basic direct lighting to global illumination to path-tracing--mostly using software written in-house. Not to mention the larger issues of asset management, data center scaling (power, water, and city requirements) and the staff and budgets to support all of that. At scales only a handful of other facilities were doing CG at, while competing for innovation, scale, and quality. I'm pretty sure Katzenberg and Whitman courted when she was at HP and they were DreamWorks' "technology partner." They worked together on things like a price-friendly color-accurate LCD monitor and the Halo video conferencing stuff. I know in the years before DreamWorks was sold to Universal there were Skunk Works projects working on phone apps. I imagine all of that was practice for this. I'm sure most of the money was on content and advertising. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by not having tech experience, but he definitely oversaw a lot and worked with people who had.