5 ms·

CBS acquires last.fm for $280m

13 points by sharpshoot 19y ago

ralph 19y ago
Also on BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/technology/6701863.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/technology/6701863.stm . Nice to see a London-based co. hit the headlines.
- sharpshoot 19y ago
  Ralph - where in the UK you based? I'm in London
  - ralph 19y ago
    Down in cider country. Used to live in Lambeth years ago though.
imp 19y ago
Does this mean that there's now a big-name company who will fight for the repeal of the recent streaming-music royalty hike?
keiretsu 19y ago
sold out too cheaply. given their leadership position, they should have ask for at least $500m
- ed 19y ago
  Based on what?
ciordia9 19y ago
It will be curious to see where this heads in the long run. CBS is on a tear but will it fit their image, will they try and establish control, overall agenda. I've enjoyed last.fm for many years supporting through paypal donations each time I expire. ..it'll be interesting.
kingnothing 19y ago
I don't understand what they do that is worth $70M a year.
- ralph 19y ago
  They make individuals tell them precisely what music they like. This information is hard to find normally. Sellers like to either target people that will buy what they're selling, or alter what they're selling once they know more about the buyer.
- Tichy 19y ago
  Help you discover new music you might like?
- antirez 19y ago
  Worse of that, this crazy acquisitions game makes it hard for a startup with a saner plan to succeed. A startup aiming to create a good product and try to survive the old-nice-way charging for it needs to compete with rivals that are not trying at all to be profitable since the goal is to burn money in order to give everything for free and get acquired. I think this is starting to have serious effects in the quality of web software. An example: if email web clients has a cost, exactly like any other real good, let's say 10$ a year that's ok for everybody, a lot of startups could really enter the market in order to make a better product of gmail (and there are a lot of ways to improve it). This is happening at all levels. Even worse it's clear that many kind of startups are hardly profitable with advertising. I don't like this system, and I could say it does not seems liberal to me, in the highest sense at least.

13 points by sharpshoot 19y ago

ralph 19y ago

Also on BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/technology/6701863.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/technology/6701863.stm . Nice to see a London-based co. hit the headlines.

sharpshoot 19y ago
Ralph - where in the UK you based? I'm in London
- ralph 19y ago
  Down in cider country. Used to live in Lambeth years ago though.

imp 19y ago

Does this mean that there's now a big-name company who will fight for the repeal of the recent streaming-music royalty hike?

keiretsu 19y ago

sold out too cheaply. given their leadership position, they should have ask for at least $500m

ed 19y ago
Based on what?

ciordia9 19y ago

It will be curious to see where this heads in the long run. CBS is on a tear but will it fit their image, will they try and establish control, overall agenda. I've enjoyed last.fm for many years supporting through paypal donations each time I expire. ..it'll be interesting.

kingnothing 19y ago

I don't understand what they do that is worth $70M a year.

ralph 19y ago
They make individuals tell them precisely what music they like. This information is hard to find normally. Sellers like to either target people that will buy what they're selling, or alter what they're selling once they know more about the buyer.
Tichy 19y ago
Help you discover new music you might like?
antirez 19y ago
Worse of that, this crazy acquisitions game makes it hard for a startup with a saner plan to succeed. A startup aiming to create a good product and try to survive the old-nice-way charging for it needs to compete with rivals that are not trying at all to be profitable since the goal is to burn money in order to give everything for free and get acquired. I think this is starting to have serious effects in the quality of web software. An example: if email web clients has a cost, exactly like any other real good, let's say 10$ a year that's ok for everybody, a lot of startups could really enter the market in order to make a better product of gmail (and there are a lot of ways to improve it). This is happening at all levels. Even worse it's clear that many kind of startups are hardly profitable with advertising. I don't like this system, and I could say it does not seems liberal to me, in the highest sense at least.