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

Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund (2008)

old.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 184 posts

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund (2008)

#151

Post by jacobr1 »

ethbro wrote: post #63
reza_n wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 3. New news. NY Times topped $1 billion in subscription revenue last year. Quite a feat and definitely an indication that money is to be made in digital news. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/new-york-times-c...

The question is whether that's zero-sum consolidation (as competitors close) or sustainable.

It can be both. Indy bookstores seemed to have reached an equilibrium point after the onslaught of both the big boxes and Amazon. There are many fewer stores, but those that remain are often profitable with loyal followings. They had to innovate to branch into things like becoming half-coffee/half-bookstores, or become better big-boxes themselves, or focus on community events and authors.

Perhaps we'll see a collapse of local news (which really has already happened) and the resurgence of quality national news on a smaller, less competitive, but sustainable basis?

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund (2008)

#152

Post by PKop »

m3rc wrote: post #124
sebleon wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter is profitable with revenues of $732M. What’s your definition of a business failure?

Is Twitter now profitable? It was my understanding that throughout all of 2016 and 207 they were operating at a loss. And for a long time before that. If they're profitable this year it could be a turning point and I'd be wrong, at least going forward. But do we have enough data to support it at this point?

Let me Google that for you...

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/08/twitter-q4-2017-earnings-rev...

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund (2008)

#153

Post by mrep »

spacehome wrote: post #138
mrep wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm amazed auctions have not taken over live show tickets. Scalpers skim off millions of dollars every year that events/middleman startup could capture themselves if only someone designed a proper live show ticket auction.

The artists don't want this. They want fans long-term, and for the fans to not feel excluded because of monetary reasons. They believe that keeping the tickets at a below-market rate achieves this. Whether this strategy has the effect they desire I have no idea.

So create a double selling strategy which sells low priced tickets for super fans and sell the rest at auction.

Let's be honest, the "long-term fan" strategy is generally just a profit maximizing strategy due to repeat sells.

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund (2008)

#154

Post by m3rc »

PKop wrote: post #152
m3rc wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Twitter now profitable? It was my understanding that throughout all of 2016 and 207 they were operating at a loss. And for a long time before that. If they're profitable this year it could be a turning point and I'd be wrong, at least going forward. But do we have enough data to support it at this point?

Let me Google that for you... https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/08/twitter-q4-2017-earnings-rev...

So... a simple yes would have sufficed. They were not profitable, now they are. They may not be later, we'll find out.

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund (2008)

#155

Post by mrep »

mertd wrote: post #149
mrep wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm amazed auctions have not taken over live show tickets. Scalpers skim off millions of dollars every year that events/middleman startup could capture themselves if only someone designed a proper live show ticket auction.

There is a great Freakonomics episode on exactly that. tl;dr was that people don't like buying stuff via auctions. http://freakonomics.com/podcast/live-event-ticket-market-scr...

But will they deal with the extra hassle of an auction to see their favorite artists when their artists are incentivized by millions of dollars in extra profit by using an auction based system?

I bet so

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund (2008)

#156

Post by nwatson »

abalone wrote: post #46

My take (just the first five): 1. A cure for the disease of which the RIAA is a symptom. Spotify & Apple Music. Pay $10/mo for unlimited access to most music. Took the wind out of music piracy. (TV & film are undergoing a similar transition to subscription models, more slowly.) 2. Simplified browsing...Grandparents and small children don't want the full web... Apps. Remember this list is from just one year after the…

"Spotify & Apple Music" --> Rhapsody/Napster already had this in 2001. I was a subscriber soon after. So many thought music subscriptions were a strange concept, from mainstream media to TWiT, and that it would never work. I think Rhapsody/Napster was too far ahead of its time, and faced too many technical obstacles, especially when they switched their DRM too many times (they eventually used one from Microsoft, forget the name, which Microsoft discontinued in favor of their own Zune service, and Rhapsody/Napster had to scramble). When Apple and Google jumped in, and Netflix showed the possibilities on the video side, Rhapsody/Napster already was stretched too thin to compete.

(Of course, the incarnation of Napster referenced here is very different from the original Napster concept.)

EDIT: Windows pre-Zune DRM was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_PlaysForSure (PlaysForSure) -- it was "anything but". So many synchronization problems with devices, it was painful.

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund (2008)

#157

Post by dchuk »

nwatson wrote: post #156
abalone wrote: post #46

My take (just the first five): 1. A cure for the disease of which the RIAA is a symptom. Spotify & Apple Music. Pay $10/mo for unlimited access to most music. Took the wind out of music piracy. (TV & film are undergoing a similar transition to subscription models, more slowly.) 2. Simplified browsing...Grandparents and small children don't want the full web... Apps. Remember this list is from just one year after the…

"Spotify & Apple Music" --> Rhapsody/Napster already had this in 2001. I was a subscriber soon after. So many thought music subscriptions were a strange concept, from mainstream media to TWiT, and that it would never work. I think Rhapsody/Napster was too far ahead of its time, and faced too many technical obstacles, especially when they switched their DRM too many times (they eventually used one from Microsoft, forg…

""Spotify & Apple Music" --> Rhapsody/Napster already had this in 2001"

Yeah but neither of those had a billion+ smart phones to deliver their subscription service to. Not really their fault, but clearly mobile streaming was what really made this type of product skyrocket in popularity.

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund (2008)

#158

Post by analyst74 »

nwatson wrote: post #156
abalone wrote: post #46

My take (just the first five): 1. A cure for the disease of which the RIAA is a symptom. Spotify & Apple Music. Pay $10/mo for unlimited access to most music. Took the wind out of music piracy. (TV & film are undergoing a similar transition to subscription models, more slowly.) 2. Simplified browsing...Grandparents and small children don't want the full web... Apps. Remember this list is from just one year after the…

"Spotify & Apple Music" --> Rhapsody/Napster already had this in 2001. I was a subscriber soon after. So many thought music subscriptions were a strange concept, from mainstream media to TWiT, and that it would never work. I think Rhapsody/Napster was too far ahead of its time, and faced too many technical obstacles, especially when they switched their DRM too many times (they eventually used one from Microsoft, forg…

I don't know how much spotify & apple disrupts label's biz model, they still have to pay enormous amount of money to the labels for songs being played.

They supplement record label's core business more than they disrupt.

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund (2008)

#160

Post by exolymph »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #122
encoderer wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tinder has changed everything here. Top grossing app last year. Real genius is not the swipe interface it’s the double opt-in that solves a lot of the signal v noise problem on old time dating sites like okcupid, match, etc.

Dating is still pretty broken for minorities or people who aren't into the heteronormative scene. Grindr has been great for gay men, but for minority folks (whether they be part of a minority group or have minority preferences), dating is still very much unsolved.

That's a problem with more demand than supply, fundamentally.
Post reply on HN