91–100 of 176 posts
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".
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Going back to what it was 20 years ago? I'm sold!
There is no going back, we are now talking about a 90% mobile network, that is used by some people every two minutes. This is not even comparable to the network we had. If we switch to a non digital ad world, it will be a net with different classes of citizens. I‘ll gladly pay for my 30 subscriptions but a whole global class of people will not be able to.
Versus now, when we have websites sponsored by advertising and run by people trying to push their agenda.
But... here's the revenue and profits for Google and Facebook since 2017 (when the article appears to have been written), including analyst forecasts for the next year (* are analyst forecasts). 2017 2018* 2019* Google revenue $110.86B $136.47B $162.64B Facebook revenue $40.65B $55.36B $68.87B Apple revenue $265.60B $277.91B $289.25B While Apple's growth rate seems to be slowing down (due to iPhone sales slowing), bo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Another nonsensical article about adtech. This is not how the industry works. Apple does not have a chance at buying Google because they have the same market cap. Google and Facebook have a massive advantage in scale and precision which is why 2 of the top 10 biggest companies on the planet are ad networks. The valuations come from the sheer profit they generate, not their assets, and how much Disney spends on conten…
Thank you for posting this one. Saving for later.
The article was originally posted in October 2017, so your "1 year later" is already passed.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The content that Google and Facebook produce is garbage. It’s only barely better than nothing at all. Most people would not pay for the kind of content that shows up on Facebook and YouTube by so-called “content creators”. Facebooks ads are garbage except in certain circumstances. Everyone knows this, including the big brands, but they continue to do it because it makes the board happy when they see their brand on FB…
> "Most people would not pay for the kind of content..." I'm fairly certain an economist would tell you they are paying now. That is, in simple layperson's terms: "Time is money." All that time on FB - contributing and consuming - is being paid for. AND FB gets to serve them ads as well. It's hard to believe it's legal ;)
I'm so happy now for all the people who made the hundreds of films I've watched for free on the web.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The success many youtube creators have on Patreon demonstrates that many people would gladly pay for their content. Whether they'd pay google for the content instead of the creator themselves is another matter entirely... People like the content creators a lot more than they like google/youtube itself.
I believe your second sentence negates the first. But even if it didn't, Patreon is a glorified busker's tip jar. There are only a small number of individuals on earth who can make a full-time living from it. There's no sign that this model could work at scale for a large corporation. Even if it theoretically could, in practice your second sentence would again come into play.
Why should it? Most of the content people are now enjoying day to day isn't coming from large corporations. What we're witnessing now is the infancy of a shift away from the centralization of entertainment started by the industrial revolution (with access to printing presses, radio broadcasting, etc being relatively limited by economies of scale or similar reasons) back to a more community focused model that provides greater diversity in content. Most are welcoming this change as it brings them access to media of the sort they've never before had access to, as well as closer two-way relationships with the producers of that content.
This isn't limited to youtube/video content either by the way, it's happening in music and other forms of art/entertainment as well. The platforms used to provide the distribution of content and used to collect payment will prove to be interchangeable; they aren't the part of the picture that matters. What matters is the relationships creators and their patrons can now cultivate. Now that people know this model is possible, the cat's not going back into the bag. Even if youtube or patreon were to close up shop, the demand would still be there and new platforms would be adopted or created if necessary because now people have seen a glimpse of what's possible and don't want to go back.
Another nonsensical article about adtech. This is not how the industry works. Apple does not have a chance at buying Google because they have the same market cap. Google and Facebook have a massive advantage in scale and precision which is why 2 of the top 10 biggest companies on the planet are ad networks. The valuations come from the sheer profit they generate, not their assets, and how much Disney spends on conten…
>>> What matters is getting a positive return. In theory yes but not in practice. Many companies run ads as strict losses, until they stop spending or die, then another company will eventually the spot. The revenue equilibrium is about where Google is paid all revenues from the customers it brought. The company gets more customer but makes neither a profit nor a loss. It's very close to that in practice. It's really…
Lots of companies make a lot of money on the web. Google doesn't have a monopoly of profit.