Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SoundCloud's Collapse

buzzfeed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 331 posts

Re: SoundCloud's Collapse

#91

Post by CamTin »

tuxxy wrote: post #55
thinbeige wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're missing the point. I've no problem with major label artists but when you start dealing with them you start dealing with licensing. You think all those mixes come for free? They have to be licensed as well once the embedded song snippets exceed 30sec which most of them do (also depending on the local jurisdiction). Soundcloud had to find agreements with the labels sooner or later anyway because of the mixes a…

> 99% of the mixes on SoundCloud are crap. Spoken like a person who didn't understand all that was on the platform. You do realize that SoundCloud had basically spawned a different genre of hip hop and rap, right? It's not just dance mixes, there's a lot of stuff that's super unique on there and it's not just hip hop, rap, or edm.

I'm far from a SoundCloud user or a hip hop or rap aficionado, but I'd like to learn more about this. Can you elaborate? Or do you know of a source where I can read about this?

Re: SoundCloud's Collapse

#92

Post by elmar »

GarethX wrote: post #62
elmar wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But plently of really successful tech companies did not overgrow their team size for a number of years. E.g Facebook. A much better example is WhatsUp with 55 employees at the time of aquisition.

Or Instagram - they had 13 employees when they were acquired.

Yes, but you could argue that WhatsUp is even more impressive because it can be considered much latter stage and aquisition value also reflects that being 19x more than Instagram.

Re: SoundCloud's Collapse

#93

Post by cupcakestand »

mailshanx wrote: post #56
erikb wrote: post #12

If anybody else is also put off by the writing style: There is some actual content there. One just needs to get through the first third which basically just repeats the headline. TL;DR (without my opinion added): Top Management started too late to think about making actual money. They also hired an asshole for their US offices. When they got an opportunity to be bought by Twitter they asked for way too much money. An…

Maybe he already cashed out? We increasingly hear of founders taking money off the table by selling a part of their share when it comes time to raise a series-B or later round. SoundCloud was likely well past the series-B stage, and i wouldn't be surprised if the founder already has a few million in the bank.

They have. But still, every founder wants to avoid such situations. The founding team's reputation went from sky to hell within few weeks. Not nice and nobody wants to loose their face like this.

Re: SoundCloud's Collapse

#94

Post by sgroppino »

elmar wrote: post #63
yeukhon wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case it was not clear, I was talking from getting VC money, meaning you already have some cash to run for some months. Why would a VC want to see their money burn to the ground if all they see is hiring 200 people when you really just 100 people?

don't ignore the lack business acumen of some VCs.

Mostly because they just look at number of users and hope someone will buy the company at a users multiplier valuation and nothing else?

Re: SoundCloud's Collapse

#96

Post by fooker »

tanilama wrote: post #75
elmar wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most of google sucesses outside search were done like that without the CEO having knowledge.

Ads: doubleclick, bought Maps: bought Youtube: bought Android: bought What else?

Google had a successful ads business before the doubleclick acquisition.

They are still more or less separate software stacks. (Disclaimer: This knowledge is outdated by about 2 years, but a significant change is unlikely. )

Re: SoundCloud's Collapse

#98

Post by sgroppino »

elmar wrote: post #85
din-9 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android was bought in though.

I heard in a lecture of Blitzscaling with Eric Schmidt that google founders got the Google Chrome and Android projects running inside google without him knowing the real breath and intentions of the projects. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcRxFRgNpns

The main difference could be that google has loads of cash to burn trying things out. I don't know their history 100% but suspect they were pretty strict with standards when they were a small start up.

Re: SoundCloud's Collapse

#99

Post by codegladiator »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #86
iagooar wrote: post #14

This shows us, that company valuations are ridiculous and actually mean nothing. Is SoundCloud worth a billion dollars? Well, it might be on paper or in the imaginations of the founders, but what does it really mean? To me, it's worth nothing. The real problem is: these companies start to operate from the perspective of "having" those millions of dollars. This is why they hire too many people for too much money. They…

When I read stories like these, I actually feel good about my bootstrapped, down-to-earth startup. We don't make millions, we don't "disrupt" the industry, yet we solve our customers' problems and delight them. We won't ever run out of money, as we carefully check each and every expenditure, and have growing savings in the bank. When I read stories like these, I actually feel good about my bootstrapped, down-to-earth…

> For it to be a startup, you have to have a large target market.

Making up your own definition of startup ? A start-up is just a newly established business.

Re: SoundCloud's Collapse

#100

Post by glogla »

DigitalJack wrote: post #77
jopie wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this compare to Spotify which has 3000+ employees, debt financing of over a billion dollars, and an insane valuation? What does the future hold for that company whether it IPOs or not?

Good grief, what the heck does Spotify do with 3000+ employees?

Last time I checked, Spotify had 70 million users. That's one employee per 23333 users. Is that too much? How many thousands users should you have per employee?

Because if they want to have support at all (unlike, say, Google), they need quite a few employees.

Post reply on HN