Bad Times For BitTorrent: $17 M Financing Undone, Valuation Plummets

#1

Post by vaksel » Sun, Dec 14, 2008, 9:19 PM UTC

Bad Times For BitTorrent: $17 M Financing Undone, Valuation Plummets
techcrunch.com

Re: Bad Times For BitTorrent: $17 M Financing Undone, Valuation Plummets

#2

Post by mdasen » Sun, Dec 14, 2008, 10:09 PM UTC

Well, what's their business model?

BitTorrent DNA seems like an awesome idea - use individuals computers as a content delivery network to reduce bandwidth on your servers. However, it requires users to install a client program on their computer which means most people won't be able to use it.

And, like BitTorrent itself, what's stopping someone else from just reimplementing it and loosing them their profit?

I'm not saying that they don't make something of value. It's just that they don't monetize it well.

Re: Bad Times For BitTorrent: $17 M Financing Undone, Valuation Plummets

#3

Post by jbyers » Sun, Dec 14, 2008, 10:27 PM UTC

This article reminded me of something I read on GigaOm back in 2005:

"In the ephemeral world of digital content, Bit Torrent is as close to a sure thing, you can get."

http://gigaom.com/2005/08/11/bittorrent-seeded-now-waits-for...

Re: Bad Times For BitTorrent: $17 M Financing Undone, Valuation Plummets

#4

Post by tlrobinson » Sun, Dec 14, 2008, 10:30 PM UTC

Bram is the "chief scientist". Interesting title. Why not "CTO"?

Re: Bad Times For BitTorrent: $17 M Financing Undone, Valuation Plummets

#5

Post by jfarmer » Sun, Dec 14, 2008, 10:35 PM UTC

I've heard of downrounds, but I've never heard of a startup returning a round to their investors. Are there other examples of this happening?

Re: Bad Times For BitTorrent: $17 M Financing Undone, Valuation Plummets

#6

Post by Zev » Sun, Dec 14, 2008, 10:41 PM UTC

mdasen wrote: post #2

Well, what's their business model? BitTorrent DNA seems like an awesome idea - use individuals computers as a content delivery network to reduce bandwidth on your servers. However, it requires users to install a client program on their computer which means most people won't be able to use it. And, like BitTorrent itself, what's stopping someone else from just reimplementing it and loosing them their profit? I'm not s…

DNA is based on uTorrent, which is closed source - rather then the open sourced BitTorrent client.

But if you want to go down that road, whats to stop anyone from redoing any idea on their own instead of using a pre-existing product? Not very much, in reality.

Re: Bad Times For BitTorrent: $17 M Financing Undone, Valuation Plummets

#7

Post by retyred » Sun, Dec 14, 2008, 10:46 PM UTC

running ads on torrent tracker search sites...that is probably the only viable business behind this technology. not much there to sell a VC, but it is money in the bank.

Re: Bad Times For BitTorrent: $17 M Financing Undone, Valuation Plummets

#8

Post by tdavis » Sun, Dec 14, 2008, 10:56 PM UTC

Let me see if I've got this straight. It took one guy to write the BitTorrent protocol in the first place, but it takes 19 people (previously even more) to fail at turning it into a business? As soon as you have titles like "Chief Scientist" I think you're pretty much destined for failure.

Re: Bad Times For BitTorrent: $17 M Financing Undone, Valuation Plummets

#9

Post by zandorg » Sun, Dec 14, 2008, 11:06 PM UTC

I love the abrupt banning by Arrington in response to a guy who criticises his grammar, yet has no room to speak.

Re: Bad Times For BitTorrent: $17 M Financing Undone, Valuation Plummets

#10

Post by sachinag » Mon, Dec 15, 2008, 12:10 AM UTC

tlrobinson wrote: post #4

Bram is the "chief scientist". Interesting title. Why not "CTO"?

From the stories about Bram's Aspergers, I'd guess that this role means fewer management responsibilities, which probably suits him just fine: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_43/b41050468...