4 ms·

Which Facebook billionaire will buy NYT?

7 points by davewiner 15y ago

jacques_chester 15y ago
Billions are flowing to tech companies, founders of tech companies, and the tech companies themselves. The companies will all need exclusive digital content. News stories. The kind of stuff produced by news organizations. Like the NYT. I seem to recall this logic reaching its nadir when AOL got its peanut butter mixed up with Times-Warner's chocolate. I also seem to recall that it destroyed billions of dollars of shareholder value because it was a dumb idea at the time, was a dumb idea before the time and remained a dumb idea for the times that followed. This kind of vertical strategy would work if somehow Twitter (to use the example given) could supply news at a lower price than its competitors. But people already pay literally nothing (well, no marginal price) for the news they already receive. Or it could be a lockin value-add play. Except that this too is daft. Is Twitter seriously going to pay "strategy tax" and lock out non-NYT sources? Please, be serious, it's Monday and I'm at work. Twitter and Google and Facebook don't need an NYT. They don't produce content, they mediate it. Any one source they buy can quickly be replaced by another. And if they try to lock you into their source, they may find themselves being disintermediated. Disclaimer: I am of the opinion that my own modest little startup will render internet-economic questions such as these moot, so I may be a teensy bit biased.
MattLaroche 15y ago
The body of the post doesn't follow the headline. (Apparently, I've ragged on the author, Dave Winer, for similar things before http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2808050 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2808050. I came here to comment on it and it just happens to be the same contributor/blog/etc.) Headline: Which Facebook billionaire will buy the New York Times? (Implying a rich employee might buy the NYT) Body: an argument that Twitter, Facebook, Google, or another large tech company should buy a large, reputable, news corporation. (Not a rich employee, not Facebook specific) I also find the argument tenuous. What is the actual cash value to Twitter buying the New York Times? Sure, there'd be more Twitter users, but Twitter hasn't figured out how to highly monetize their users. The blog post is speculation without articulated rationale.

7 points by davewiner 15y ago

Billions are flowing to tech companies, founders of tech companies, and the tech companies themselves. The companies will all need exclusive digital content. News stories. The kind of stuff produced by news organizations. Like the NYT. I seem to recall this logic reaching its nadir when AOL got its peanut butter mixed up with Times-Warner's chocolate. I also seem to recall that it destroyed billions of dollars of shareholder value because it was a dumb idea at the time, was a dumb idea before the time and remained a dumb idea for the times that followed. This kind of vertical strategy would work if somehow Twitter (to use the example given) could supply news at a lower price than its competitors. But people already pay literally nothing (well, no marginal price) for the news they already receive. Or it could be a lockin value-add play. Except that this too is daft. Is Twitter seriously going to pay "strategy tax" and lock out non-NYT sources? Please, be serious, it's Monday and I'm at work. Twitter and Google and Facebook don't need an NYT. They don't produce content, they mediate it. Any one source they buy can quickly be replaced by another. And if they try to lock you into their source, they may find themselves being disintermediated. Disclaimer: I am of the opinion that my own modest little startup will render internet-economic questions such as these moot, so I may be a teensy bit biased.

MattLaroche 15y ago

The body of the post doesn't follow the headline. (Apparently, I've ragged on the author, Dave Winer, for similar things before http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2808050 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2808050. I came here to comment on it and it just happens to be the same contributor/blog/etc.) Headline: Which Facebook billionaire will buy the New York Times? (Implying a rich employee might buy the NYT) Body: an argument that Twitter, Facebook, Google, or another large tech company should buy a large, reputable, news corporation. (Not a rich employee, not Facebook specific) I also find the argument tenuous. What is the actual cash value to Twitter buying the New York Times? Sure, there'd be more Twitter users, but Twitter hasn't figured out how to highly monetize their users. The blog post is speculation without articulated rationale.