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

The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 176 posts

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#51

Post by disishhsha »

whttheuuu wrote: post #14
whatshisface wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Buy options" and "don't put this in to your passive retirement fund" are two very different levels of gloom-and-dooming. The market might actually become rational over the next 50+ years; there is such a thing as true information that can't be used to make money in any reasonable term. Another example of true information that can't be used to make money is information that is already priced in. Since this author is…

The difference between "buy options" and "don't put this in your passive retirement fund" is the same difference as "I'm confident in the advice im dispensing" and "I have no idea what I'm talking about".

Option pricing has a time value component, and at a multi-year time horizon this component is prohibitively high.

Eg. suppose I want to bet Oracle will go under in 20 years, how do I do that?

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#52

Post by joering2 »

humanrebar wrote: post #31
manigandham wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was basically nothing on the internet 20 years ago.

MapQuest and Amazon both started around then. People stood up personal sites at places like GeoCities. There were chat services like ICQ.

Oh boy memories.. i still remember my six digit ICQ number. It had to be circa 2000?

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#53

Post by [deleted] »

tomrod wrote: post #50
qha wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I vividly remember lots of things... what I wouldn't give for seeing IRC rise up again

It's still here!!! I love IRC -- especially being able to connect with open source project maintainers. Mad respect for all of them.

[deleted]

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#54

Post by gibybo »

darawk wrote: post #49
MarkMc wrote: post #41

Wow this article is so very wrong - Google and Facebook have enormous advantages over Disney because (a) they have other people producing valuable content for free ; (b) they know much more about each viewer than Disney. Google's revenue today is six times as large as it was a decade ago. And I expect its revenue in a decade to be at least 3 times as large as it is today. The reason is that many of the causes of past…

How does anything you just said justify a higher multiple on earnings for Google and Facebook?

Earnings multiples reflect the amount of future earnings growth. He laid out an argument for larger future earnings growth.

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#55

Post by [deleted] »

joering2 wrote: post #48
MarkMc wrote: post #41

Wow this article is so very wrong - Google and Facebook have enormous advantages over Disney because (a) they have other people producing valuable content for free ; (b) they know much more about each viewer than Disney. Google's revenue today is six times as large as it was a decade ago. And I expect its revenue in a decade to be at least 3 times as large as it is today. The reason is that many of the causes of past…

The moment you owe the stocks thats the moment your view will be biased. Anyways Google search is most likely at its peak because next evolution of internet is voice control. And take it from horse mouth - Google CEO on shareholders call said he is most concern about voice controlled search. Because you know, its hard to show people ads when they use voice to get search result.

[deleted]

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#56

Post by burntwater »

joering2 wrote: post #48
MarkMc wrote: post #41

Wow this article is so very wrong - Google and Facebook have enormous advantages over Disney because (a) they have other people producing valuable content for free ; (b) they know much more about each viewer than Disney. Google's revenue today is six times as large as it was a decade ago. And I expect its revenue in a decade to be at least 3 times as large as it is today. The reason is that many of the causes of past…

The moment you owe the stocks thats the moment your view will be biased. Anyways Google search is most likely at its peak because next evolution of internet is voice control. And take it from horse mouth - Google CEO on shareholders call said he is most concern about voice controlled search. Because you know, its hard to show people ads when they use voice to get search result.

And we move nearly full circle back to radio-style ads.

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#57

Post by tanilama »

Well, when people abandon TV they go to YouTube, and Google owns YouTube, end of story...

Video hosting is, by surprise, a very technology driven business, not as simple as upload a file then waiting for the profit. And as regulations tightens up, Google's advantage is only going to grow.

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#58

Post by tyingq »

MarkMc wrote: post #41

Wow this article is so very wrong - Google and Facebook have enormous advantages over Disney because (a) they have other people producing valuable content for free ; (b) they know much more about each viewer than Disney. Google's revenue today is six times as large as it was a decade ago. And I expect its revenue in a decade to be at least 3 times as large as it is today. The reason is that many of the causes of past…

I read it more that growth percentage won't be as high in the future. Not that there won't be growth.

That makes sense to me for Google. They have played out most of their bag of tricks to get more ad impressions. Everything above the fold is an ad, or a link to a Google owned property for any query you can monetize now. And any video on YouTube with revenue potential has a forced ad view.

That wasn't true in the past, so they could turn the dial to turn up revenue. That dial is all the way to the right now.

So, revenue growth will now match eyeball growth instead of exceeding it.

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#59

Post by monochromatic »

whatshisface wrote: post #26
palebluedot wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between "buy options" and "don't put this in your passive retirement fund" is the same difference as "I'm confident in the advice im dispensing" and "I have no idea what I'm talking about". No, it's not at all. Buying options is actively betting on both price and time targets, and carries a much different risk profile compared to simply avoiding a specific investment.

Buying a stock is a "rise eventually" bet, I wonder if it is even possible to buy a "fall eventually" bet. Probably not because nobody would be willing to bet that a company will be around forever!

Short selling. But be careful with margin calls.

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#60

Post by pravda »

MarkMc wrote: post #41

Wow this article is so very wrong - Google and Facebook have enormous advantages over Disney because (a) they have other people producing valuable content for free ; (b) they know much more about each viewer than Disney. Google's revenue today is six times as large as it was a decade ago. And I expect its revenue in a decade to be at least 3 times as large as it is today. The reason is that many of the causes of past…

>Google and Facebook have enormous advantages over Disney

The big advantage is that Google and Facebook have monopolies.

Post reply on HN