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

Why Content Is King

divinations.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 82 posts

Re: Why Content Is King

#21

Post by onebot »

friendlybus wrote: post #17
_2d30 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nintendo as a company makes more money on selling consoles, than on Zelda. In revenue or profit? It’s kind of definitional that there’s more revenue from the console than the game given that for any console you need to purchase on average ~1 game at most and a game is worth far less than a console. However, it’s my understanding consoles are generally loss leaders, priced at or below cost in anticipation of profit…

68mil Nintendo Switches sold. 19mil Breath of the Wild (Zelda) 21mil Smash bros 28mil Animal Crossing The gamecube and the wii were reasonably cheap hardware with a markup. I haven't researched the switch, it looks no different to me. *updated to sep2020 figs

What are the margins. I can almost certainly say that the margins on the games are far greater than the hardware.

Re: Why Content Is King

#22

Post by rizzom5000 »

cblconfederate wrote: post #19
dmje wrote: post #8

Conflating "media" and "content" is the issue here. Facebook is successful because of content. Google+ failed because there wasn't any content. Heading tech up against content in some way is also a silly argument. Good tech supports the transmission of content. Bad tech gets in the way. Good content is enabled by good tech. Ultimately, a web page with some stirring, moving or life changing words on it is going to hav…

> Google+ failed Google itself has lots of (free) content. Search is a medium While stirring content may exist (where is it?) , it rarely meets big tech (so it can be win-win for both)

Youtube, Twitch, TikTok, Instagram, Hulu, Netflix, etc. appear to firmly support that content is king; at least in some small corner of the internet.

Re: Why Content Is King

#23

Post by srivatsamudumby »

enriquto wrote: post #4

A good start would be to stop using this stupid terminology. Quoting RMS [0]: I think it is ok for authors (please let's not call them creators, they are not gods) to ask for money for copies of their works (please let's not devalue these works by calling them content) in order to gain income (the term compensation falsely implies it is a matter of making up for some kind of damages). [0] https://web.archive.org/web/…

lol, "please let's not call them creators, they are not gods"

Re: Why Content Is King

#24

Post by amelius »

enriquto wrote: post #4

A good start would be to stop using this stupid terminology. Quoting RMS [0]: I think it is ok for authors (please let's not call them creators, they are not gods) to ask for money for copies of their works (please let's not devalue these works by calling them content) in order to gain income (the term compensation falsely implies it is a matter of making up for some kind of damages). [0] https://web.archive.org/web/…

What is wrong with "content"? It's the opposite of "without content".

Re: Why Content Is King

#25

Post by lazyjones »

friendlybus wrote: post #5

Content sells the tech. The tech makes the most money though. Microsoft is 1 tril bigger in market cap than Disney. Strange to use a Bill gates quote and then discuss Disney films. Nintendo as a company makes more money on selling consoles, than on Zelda. The article touches on this and could expand on it. No new tech launch is going to work without content, so in that sense it is king, but the money is in the tech.

Is Zelda content or software?

Re: Why Content Is King

#26

Post by enriquto »

amelius wrote: post #24
enriquto wrote: post #4

A good start would be to stop using this stupid terminology. Quoting RMS [0]: I think it is ok for authors (please let's not call them creators, they are not gods) to ask for money for copies of their works (please let's not devalue these works by calling them content) in order to gain income (the term compensation falsely implies it is a matter of making up for some kind of damages). [0] https://web.archive.org/web/…

What is wrong with "content"? It's the opposite of "without content".

It's the epitome of wooden language.

Your example is very good for proving my point; the expression "without content" talks about what? about the content? So you would say "content without content" to speak about a text that does not have substantial content?

Re: Why Content Is King

#28

Post by onebot »

buro9 wrote: post #11

Distribution is King. Those who control distribution set the price.

Probably true. However, Apple and Netflix are now heavily in the content business. So maybe content + distribution is the true winner.

Re: Why Content Is King

#30

Post by blfr »

Veen wrote: post #20
enriquto wrote: post #4

A good start would be to stop using this stupid terminology. Quoting RMS [0]: I think it is ok for authors (please let's not call them creators, they are not gods) to ask for money for copies of their works (please let's not devalue these works by calling them content) in order to gain income (the term compensation falsely implies it is a matter of making up for some kind of damages). [0] https://web.archive.org/web/…

"Consuming" always irritates me. We don't read written works or watch videos, we consume content.

The new way of interacting with videos and other media online does warrant a different term. Many people really don't watch videos, they consume content, ie. scroll or swipe through an endless stream of tweets/videos/reddit posts stopping and then moving on.

It's just like watching a movie vs watching TV, reading versus paging through the newspaper, etc.

Post reply on HN