4 ms·

> I'll note as an ex-CoFounder/CTO So what you're saying is, you'll note as someone who has benefitted from the current system. > any of these companies creat

> I'll note as an ex-CoFounder/CTO So what you're saying is, you'll note as someone who has benefitted from the current system. > any of these companies create immense global value and could not possibly have gotten to where they are w/o the resources of a FAANG (think YouTube, WhatsApp) Huh? Both of those were immensely valuable and successful before they were acquired by a FAANG. In fact, subjectively, the user experience on YouTube - which is, of course, the ACTUAL value of YouTube - has gone downhill since they were purchased. And WhatsApp was an extremely successful competitor to a Facebook product before Facebook purchased them. > if you think otherwise, where are the competitors? Stifled by the anti-competitive practices of the FAANGs? I wonder if you might be a tad bit biased. Just a tad.

TuringNYC 5y ago
>> So what you're saying is, you'll note as someone who has benefitted from the current system. Yes, this is hackernews. I'm noting that having a consistent group of buyers for small technology companies is a good thing for...well...hackers. This entire forum is hosted by YC which fosters small technology companies. The entire forum has a bias -- most of us are technologists, many are entrepreneurs, many are small technology business entrepreneurs. I'm specifically noting that having consistent M&A is a benefit to all hackers -- and note that M&A is a choice, but it is nice to have a choice. You do realize that 30yrs ago, most hackers were relegated to the back-room while others accrued all the winnings right? Also, not sure if you've run a small company before, but its easy to create good technology with value and be unable to actually have a profitable business. Two major reasons are 1. many users dont want to pay the break-even cost, 2. legal and administrative costs for customer agreements, master servicing agreements, advertistors, etc Before Google acquired YouTube, they were bleeding cash on network/hosting fees. There was no monetization strategy, and unless money was going to be airdropped monthly, they would probably have shut down. They had <1% of the content they have today. They could theoretically go from VC round to round, but it isnt clear how that is better than an acquisition where the business was fostered into what it is now. Finally, w/r/t competitors. YouTube isnt like my mobile phone bill, or my broadband bill -- i'm not locked into a 2yr contract. Switching to a competitor is as easy as opening another tab on a browser. Which competitor do you suggest that offers equal value and how is YouTube hurting them? I watch classical concerts on YouTube. I suppose I could go buy a flight to London and purchase opera tickets, but i'm not sure if that is a better deal. I could rent DVDs of performances, but the selection at the local video store is nil. I can line up examples.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
minhazm 5y ago
The thing is YouTube likely would not have survived without being acquired or continuously raising huge amounts of capital. Bandwidth is absurdly expensive and they have to store exabytes of data and make it available all around the world in a reasonable amount of time, and make it all load quickly. I don’t think YouTube would be profitable today if they didn’t get to piggy back on the massive infrastructure Google built. There are just some services that are simply not profitable until you reach a massive scale.
- bjustin 5y ago
  I agree about YouTube, but I think the funding environment has changed significantly since then. Requiring larger amounts of money or a longer time span than usual is a surmountable problem now. Uber has proven that being unprofitable to the tune of billions is not necessarily a death sentence, not even enough to prevent an IPO in their case.
- jfrunyon 5y ago
  YouTube has a massive scale, and had a massive scale before Google purchased them. I don't think you understand just how much money they make from ads, not to mention the various other revenue options they've rolled out. Frankly, whether YouTube would've succeeded on its own or not is irrelevant, as is whether Giphy would succeed on its own or not.
  - minhazm 5y ago
    I think YouTube only became profitable in the last few years [1]. And it's not clear at all how much profit YouTube actually generates today since they don't break down net profit for YouTube in their earnings. Remember that 50% of the ad revenue goes to creators (possibly higher for some top end creators). The 50% they keep has to fund all of the infrastructure required to keep YouTube running, which is definitely billions of dollars a year, not even including the employees. 1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-for-youtube-1424897967 https://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-f...

TuringNYC 5y ago

>> So what you're saying is, you'll note as someone who has benefitted from the current system. Yes, this is hackernews. I'm noting that having a consistent group of buyers for small technology companies is a good thing for...well...hackers. This entire forum is hosted by YC which fosters small technology companies. The entire forum has a bias -- most of us are technologists, many are entrepreneurs, many are small technology business entrepreneurs. I'm specifically noting that having consistent M&A is a benefit to all hackers -- and note that M&A is a choice, but it is nice to have a choice. You do realize that 30yrs ago, most hackers were relegated to the back-room while others accrued all the winnings right? Also, not sure if you've run a small company before, but its easy to create good technology with value and be unable to actually have a profitable business. Two major reasons are 1. many users dont want to pay the break-even cost, 2. legal and administrative costs for customer agreements, master servicing agreements, advertistors, etc Before Google acquired YouTube, they were bleeding cash on network/hosting fees. There was no monetization strategy, and unless money was going to be airdropped monthly, they would probably have shut down. They had <1% of the content they have today. They could theoretically go from VC round to round, but it isnt clear how that is better than an acquisition where the business was fostered into what it is now. Finally, w/r/t competitors. YouTube isnt like my mobile phone bill, or my broadband bill -- i'm not locked into a 2yr contract. Switching to a competitor is as easy as opening another tab on a browser. Which competitor do you suggest that offers equal value and how is YouTube hurting them? I watch classical concerts on YouTube. I suppose I could go buy a flight to London and purchase opera tickets, but i'm not sure if that is a better deal. I could rent DVDs of performances, but the selection at the local video store is nil. I can line up examples.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

minhazm 5y ago

The thing is YouTube likely would not have survived without being acquired or continuously raising huge amounts of capital. Bandwidth is absurdly expensive and they have to store exabytes of data and make it available all around the world in a reasonable amount of time, and make it all load quickly. I don’t think YouTube would be profitable today if they didn’t get to piggy back on the massive infrastructure Google built. There are just some services that are simply not profitable until you reach a massive scale.

bjustin 5y ago
I agree about YouTube, but I think the funding environment has changed significantly since then. Requiring larger amounts of money or a longer time span than usual is a surmountable problem now. Uber has proven that being unprofitable to the tune of billions is not necessarily a death sentence, not even enough to prevent an IPO in their case.
jfrunyon 5y ago
YouTube has a massive scale, and had a massive scale before Google purchased them. I don't think you understand just how much money they make from ads, not to mention the various other revenue options they've rolled out. Frankly, whether YouTube would've succeeded on its own or not is irrelevant, as is whether Giphy would succeed on its own or not.
- minhazm 5y ago
  I think YouTube only became profitable in the last few years [1]. And it's not clear at all how much profit YouTube actually generates today since they don't break down net profit for YouTube in their earnings. Remember that 50% of the ad revenue goes to creators (possibly higher for some top end creators). The 50% they keep has to fund all of the infrastructure required to keep YouTube running, which is definitely billions of dollars a year, not even including the employees. 1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-for-youtube-1424897967 https://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-f...