There are two different phenomena to keep in mind:
1. Investor mentality.
2. Viable businesses.
The dotcom crash wiped out enough investor portfolios that many of those people have never gotten back into the market. And it looks like some of them didn't bite with the Facebook offer, either. People aren't buying it like crazy, so caution still appears to be the watchword. Anyone else hoping to do an IPO may be thinking twice about it now.
But companies that look sound and are efficiently run may not need to do an IPO anyway. They can get their funding from private investors, crowdfunding projects, maybe some grants, and maybe loans.
What happens in the stock market does not necessarily keep the worthy companies from getting money. What it does do is discourage backing of companies where the only purpose is to take it public and not worry about it after the initial investors and the investment bankers take their share. If "dumb" investors catch on that the bubble is really just them being scammed, the bubble bursts, and caution happens again.
The ripple effect of Facebook's meh IPO already seems to be happening. In my mind, that's good. It means maybe there aren't a lot of "greater fools" to be exploited. That means that VCs might look more carefully at what they are throwing money at.
I like all the tech incubators that have popped up. Yes, let's have lots of creative types seeing if they can create good companies. But that doesn't mean most of those companies are worth or are going to need to go to the IPO stage. And if there isn't a lot of support at the IPO stage, the initial investors will think twice before counting on that as their exit strategy.
I'm not sure if all that is clear to some of you, but the fact that Facebook isn't going to fold right away doesn't, therefore, mean that we won't see a dotcom 2 crash. Social media companies will keep chugging along. Most will fail, and a few will survive, and hopefully investment money will look for other areas than just social media.
Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
So? If they met their goal, they have what they need... At least wait the 3 weeks until their funding cycle ceases. Why do you think it takes hundreds of thousands of dollars to make a movie, anyway? Do some research on how many great movies cost less.
What I am saying is that they are offering some cool rewards and yet not that many people have signed up for them.
Yes, you can say that as long as the original funding goal has been met it doesn't matter.
But, if you compare what they are doing to Amanda Palmer, who has reached over $750,000 so far and who also had an initial $100,000 goal, then it makes you wonder why her fans have come out in such great numbers and these screenwriters' fans have not. Is it the type of rewards? Is it the fan relationship? Is it the publicity?
They have met their goal, but haven't yet raised hundreds of thousands of dollars. Some of the rewards are pretty cool, so I would have thought there would be more takers. Maybe it hasn't gotten enough publicity yet. Or maybe their fans are either broke or reluctant to spend.
I can fricken imagine Google having a real interest in all of the elements of SOPA once it's their shit being being monetized by others. ...
Once Google gets addicted to the cash that will be flowing in, they will be indistinguishable from any other company that distributes content for profit. Why people continue to believe the "don't be evil" bullshit is stunning. Google cares about money and power above all. Watch and see what happens. You'll look back longingly for the freedoms you'd have had under SOPA.
Yes, I'd be curious to see what happens, too. If Google owned most of the world's recorded music, I'm a bit skeptical that it would just release it for free to its competitors and potential competitors. At the very least, I would think it might try to find a way to get a piece of every transaction involving the music. Maybe anyone else hosting the music wouldn't turn up on Google searches, so at the very least you couldn't find the music unless you went through Google. :-)
I would support google starting its own label, and hopefully replace the old out of touch ones
I don't see why anyone would start a label now. Too much work and too little return. That's not a business Google needs to be in. However, it does make sense for Google to just buy the major labels to get those back catalogs to do what it wants with them.
I've suggested that to industry people. Why bother with music you have to license? Just deal with musicians who will give it to you for free. However, they tell me that listeners want those major label songs and no service that only deals with unsigned artists will make it.
But I think starting a company where you have to license music is doomed to fail. And I don't feel sorry for those who do and then complain that the major labels and rights organizations are impossible to deal with. They knew what they were getting into.
If Google is gonna do this, it should buy the labels outright.
I've assumed that is what people have been speculating about. Why not just buy the labels, own the copyrights, and then do what you want with them (of course, they would only own the master copyrights, not necessarily the songwriter copyrights). Make the music free to the world if that's what Google would like to do. Actually, I'd love to see what would happen. If Google owned all the major label music, would they make it available to competing services? They would if they truly want a copyright-free world.
The dotcom bubble did cause many sites to disappear.
No, it didn't. The bubble and the crash were related to the stock market. The values of the stocks rose and then fell. But that didn't cause the companies to fold. The companies folded because they ran out of money, not because their stock, which had already been issued, declined in value.
I agree with you, but I think you underestimate the number of active users facebook has. Now, I'm not saying facebook is always going to be this popular, at some point the next big social site will replace it, but not currently.
Facebook will continue to exist for a long time. We still have AOL. And MySpace is still with us.
I'm not saying Facebook will disappear. What I am saying is that if it doesn't make new investors money, it will tend to sour lots of people in buying shares in social media companies, which I don't necessarily think is a bad thing.
I doubt it. This isn't the 1.0 internet. The sheer number of people on-line now, and using social media makes such doomsday prophecy, unlikely at best. Facebook isn't pets.com.
Many of the hyped companies, even if profitable, won't turn out to be good investments, or at least based on the valuations given them. We've got more social media companies than the universe can support, so a lot of them will fail. That's not a problem at all for those who are used to losing money on risky investments. But hopefully it will keep out people who can't take on those risks.
What the world really needs is more scientific innovation to solve some of mankind's major problems. Those don't lend themselves the kinds of investments VCs like to do, but if the me-too companies turn out to be bad investments, maybe we'll start looking for better ways to place capital.
I'm the camp that agrees Facebook is not a good place to advertise. Many people (including me) will not click on any Facebook ads because we don't trust Facebook. And the more Facebook tries to collect info on us to sell to advertisers, the less we trust it.
This article says what should have been said before and by many.
I was writing about tech companies during the dotcom boom and bust. We didn't actually know the market had hit its peak until it never hit it again. So the bust wasn't completely recognizable until looking back. Once average investors realized they probably weren't going to make money in the market, they stopped investing, and some of them got nervous and pulled out.
This current market has struck me as unsustainable because world economic conditions give me no reason to think boom times are in our immediate future. If Facebook's stock doesn't do well, this might be the beginning of dotcom crash 2. The people most impacted will be VCs and startups. If there is no obvious exit strategy and companies are expected to be profitable to keep going, that could decrease all the media hype about so many of them. Then maybe we can focus on some really needed companies rather than the next social media startup.
The private trading of Facebook shares reached a point where the company had to register with the SEC. Since it was going to have to start sharing business info anyway, they decided they might as well do an IPO and collect some extra money.
Now I may be against the copyright maximalists and all but this is the most ludicrous comment I've read in this thread.
Not if we are contemplating open source music. Writing a song and then having your fans tweak it for you doesn't strike me as all that open source. Collectively creating a song that no single person can claim seems more open source to me.
I'd like to see an open source music project where the goal is to collectively create music rather than just as a way to involve fans so that they rally around a musician, which strikes me as an extension of a star system. Let's take this open source concept out as far as we can go with it. Make the music the star rather than individual musicians.
Meanwhile the MAFIAA will keep moaning "But, but... Piracy!" and will probably lose the timing in this case too ;)
If Anonymous posts the first version and if each contributor who modifies the song also does it as Anonymous, then technically, the original song and the evolving modifications would be covered by copyright, but the copyright couldn't be attributed to a specific person or company. Seems like that would deter any piracy claims.
Denver has one, too, put on by the local Greek Cathedral. This year will be its 40th annual festival. I didn't attend the very first one, but did get to it just few years later. I was living in a Denver suburb, and my father and his family were Russian Orthodox, so I checked it out. Great food.
What will be interesting is if people embrace the idea of encouraging the musical process, without anyone hoping to use the final product to promote an individual career. What if individuals no longer gain fame from music; instead more people get involved with music, though with less visibility? That could discourage all the people who think of musical careers primarily as a route to fame. We'd have the collective musical community, without the stars.
On the post: Facebook Trading Near Its IPO Price Means It Was Priced Right, Not That It Was A Disaster
Re: Is dotcom crash 2 coming?
1. Investor mentality.
2. Viable businesses.
The dotcom crash wiped out enough investor portfolios that many of those people have never gotten back into the market. And it looks like some of them didn't bite with the Facebook offer, either. People aren't buying it like crazy, so caution still appears to be the watchword. Anyone else hoping to do an IPO may be thinking twice about it now.
But companies that look sound and are efficiently run may not need to do an IPO anyway. They can get their funding from private investors, crowdfunding projects, maybe some grants, and maybe loans.
What happens in the stock market does not necessarily keep the worthy companies from getting money. What it does do is discourage backing of companies where the only purpose is to take it public and not worry about it after the initial investors and the investment bankers take their share. If "dumb" investors catch on that the bubble is really just them being scammed, the bubble bursts, and caution happens again.
The ripple effect of Facebook's meh IPO already seems to be happening. In my mind, that's good. It means maybe there aren't a lot of "greater fools" to be exploited. That means that VCs might look more carefully at what they are throwing money at.
I like all the tech incubators that have popped up. Yes, let's have lots of creative types seeing if they can create good companies. But that doesn't mean most of those companies are worth or are going to need to go to the IPO stage. And if there isn't a lot of support at the IPO stage, the initial investors will think twice before counting on that as their exit strategy.
I'm not sure if all that is clear to some of you, but the fact that Facebook isn't going to fold right away doesn't, therefore, mean that we won't see a dotcom 2 crash. Social media companies will keep chugging along. Most will fail, and a few will survive, and hopefully investment money will look for other areas than just social media.
On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'
Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
What I am saying is that they are offering some cool rewards and yet not that many people have signed up for them.
Yes, you can say that as long as the original funding goal has been met it doesn't matter.
But, if you compare what they are doing to Amanda Palmer, who has reached over $750,000 so far and who also had an initial $100,000 goal, then it makes you wonder why her fans have come out in such great numbers and these screenwriters' fans have not. Is it the type of rewards? Is it the fan relationship? Is it the publicity?
On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'
Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
On the post: Why Would Google Offer $1B For Music Rights? Because The Return Could Be Much Bigger
Re:
Once Google gets addicted to the cash that will be flowing in, they will be indistinguishable from any other company that distributes content for profit. Why people continue to believe the "don't be evil" bullshit is stunning. Google cares about money and power above all. Watch and see what happens. You'll look back longingly for the freedoms you'd have had under SOPA.
Yes, I'd be curious to see what happens, too. If Google owned most of the world's recorded music, I'm a bit skeptical that it would just release it for free to its competitors and potential competitors. At the very least, I would think it might try to find a way to get a piece of every transaction involving the music. Maybe anyone else hosting the music wouldn't turn up on Google searches, so at the very least you couldn't find the music unless you went through Google. :-)
On the post: Why Would Google Offer $1B For Music Rights? Because The Return Could Be Much Bigger
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: $1-billion to labels?
I don't see why anyone would start a label now. Too much work and too little return. That's not a business Google needs to be in. However, it does make sense for Google to just buy the major labels to get those back catalogs to do what it wants with them.
On the post: Why Would Google Offer $1B For Music Rights? Because The Return Could Be Much Bigger
Re: Re: Re: $1-billion to labels?
But I think starting a company where you have to license music is doomed to fail. And I don't feel sorry for those who do and then complain that the major labels and rights organizations are impossible to deal with. They knew what they were getting into.
On the post: Why Would Google Offer $1B For Music Rights? Because The Return Could Be Much Bigger
Re: Re: $1-billion to labels?
I've assumed that is what people have been speculating about. Why not just buy the labels, own the copyrights, and then do what you want with them (of course, they would only own the master copyrights, not necessarily the songwriter copyrights). Make the music free to the world if that's what Google would like to do. Actually, I'd love to see what would happen. If Google owned all the major label music, would they make it available to competing services? They would if they truly want a copyright-free world.
On the post: Facebook Trading Near Its IPO Price Means It Was Priced Right, Not That It Was A Disaster
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is dotcom crash 2 coming?
No, it didn't. The bubble and the crash were related to the stock market. The values of the stocks rose and then fell. But that didn't cause the companies to fold. The companies folded because they ran out of money, not because their stock, which had already been issued, declined in value.
On the post: Facebook Trading Near Its IPO Price Means It Was Priced Right, Not That It Was A Disaster
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is dotcom crash 2 coming?
Facebook will continue to exist for a long time. We still have AOL. And MySpace is still with us.
I'm not saying Facebook will disappear. What I am saying is that if it doesn't make new investors money, it will tend to sour lots of people in buying shares in social media companies, which I don't necessarily think is a bad thing.
On the post: Facebook Trading Near Its IPO Price Means It Was Priced Right, Not That It Was A Disaster
Re: Re: Is dotcom crash 2 coming?
Many of the hyped companies, even if profitable, won't turn out to be good investments, or at least based on the valuations given them. We've got more social media companies than the universe can support, so a lot of them will fail. That's not a problem at all for those who are used to losing money on risky investments. But hopefully it will keep out people who can't take on those risks.
What the world really needs is more scientific innovation to solve some of mankind's major problems. Those don't lend themselves the kinds of investments VCs like to do, but if the me-too companies turn out to be bad investments, maybe we'll start looking for better ways to place capital.
On the post: Facebook Trading Near Its IPO Price Means It Was Priced Right, Not That It Was A Disaster
Re: Re: Facebook IPO too much too late
This article says what should have been said before and by many.
Facebook’s biggest problem is that it’s a media company — Tech News and Analysis
On the post: Facebook Trading Near Its IPO Price Means It Was Priced Right, Not That It Was A Disaster
Is dotcom crash 2 coming?
This current market has struck me as unsustainable because world economic conditions give me no reason to think boom times are in our immediate future. If Facebook's stock doesn't do well, this might be the beginning of dotcom crash 2. The people most impacted will be VCs and startups. If there is no obvious exit strategy and companies are expected to be profitable to keep going, that could decrease all the media hype about so many of them. Then maybe we can focus on some really needed companies rather than the next social media startup.
On the post: Facebook Trading Near Its IPO Price Means It Was Priced Right, Not That It Was A Disaster
Re: A loss
The “Facebook Problem,” Secondary Market Trading and the 500 Shareholder Rule: Part 2 of a 4-Part Series on the Jobs Act -peHUB: Sooner or later, Facebook would exceed 500 shareholders of record and be required to register with the SEC.
On the post: Musician Wonders What It Would Take To Become An Open Source Musician
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Authorship & Control in Generative design
On the post: Musician Wonders What It Would Take To Become An Open Source Musician
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not if we are contemplating open source music. Writing a song and then having your fans tweak it for you doesn't strike me as all that open source. Collectively creating a song that no single person can claim seems more open source to me.
I'd like to see an open source music project where the goal is to collectively create music rather than just as a way to involve fans so that they rally around a musician, which strikes me as an extension of a star system. Let's take this open source concept out as far as we can go with it. Make the music the star rather than individual musicians.
On the post: Musician Wonders What It Would Take To Become An Open Source Musician
Re: Re:
On the post: Musician Wonders What It Would Take To Become An Open Source Musician
Re:
If Anonymous posts the first version and if each contributor who modifies the song also does it as Anonymous, then technically, the original song and the evolving modifications would be covered by copyright, but the copyright couldn't be attributed to a specific person or company. Seems like that would deter any piracy claims.
On the post: Musicians Realizing They Don't Need Major Labels Anymore
Re: Pop-Ups (reply to Suzanne Lainson, # 90)
On the post: Musician Wonders What It Would Take To Become An Open Source Musician
It's about the music, not the rock star
On the post: Musician Wonders What It Would Take To Become An Open Source Musician
Re: Do we need anyone to claim authorship?
Next >>