Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are going to use the music to entertain your customers, pay for it like you're supposed to.
Why don't you propose a solution?
Learn to play the harp and compose your own songs.
YouTube to Acquire Videogame-Streaming Service Twitch for $1 Billion?
241–245 of 245 posts
Re: YouTube to Acquire Videogame-Streaming Service Twitch for $1 Billion?
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm really not sure why some of the other comments here are focusing on the playing of music on the stream. Obviously they've never watched someone gaming on twitch. Nobody watches twitch for the music someone is playing. People watch it to see other people play and talk about games. Music may be in the background but is often obscured by dialog and game sounds. It's not even close to the quality a youtube video for…
Moving away from the music for a second, the public streaming of gameplay doesn't constitute copyright infringement? I'm no legal expert but it seems to me a bit of a stretch to call it fair use - especially for single player games.
The game which I play (Runescape) actively supports and advocates streaming of it's gameplay as a way to increase user numbers through popularity.
Re: YouTube to Acquire Videogame-Streaming Service Twitch for $1 Billion?
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
YouTube is a Juggernaut. But Twitch is not, and most of its audience is very young and focused on technology, manly video games. They will move fast . Create the next Twitch now. Wait for YouTube to force content restrictions on the old Twitch. Profit.
And then when you're big, sell out like everyone else.
it's the CIIIIIIIRRRCLE OF LIIIIIIIIIFE
Re: YouTube to Acquire Videogame-Streaming Service Twitch for $1 Billion?
#244Surely this is a massive competition concern and should be blocked on such grounds?!
There aren't many barriers to entry in this field though. It's not a situation like a utility/ISP where you can only feasibly have one last-mile connection due to permits or limited radio spectrum. It's not even something like a nuclear reactor which costs $10B and a decade before you can flip the switch. I'm not saying I could build a streaming site in my closet this weekend, but it's not impossible for competitors…
I have to disagree with this strongly. There are significant economies to scale in any streaming service. For example, in terms of costs (streaming services require a lot of hardware). But also in terms of branding and reaching a critical mass in terms of content.
Re: YouTube to Acquire Videogame-Streaming Service Twitch for $1 Billion?
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
Glad to see you're the leading authority on this matter. Tell me, from whence did you judge that Snapchat is "ephemeral"? How did you manage to outplay the dozens of very smart, very experienced, and very successful VCs and investors that have spent dozens of man-hours thinking about whether they should or should not dump millions of dollars into Snapchat? You are aware, that, as of now, Snapchat has raised more than…
Large amounts of funding have historically shown little correlation with success.
Really? Can you show me any statistical data for that? Or just anecdotal stuff? Because trust me, there's probably 10x as much anecdotal evidence for companies with large amounts of funding that HAVE had success. Just looking around me at the company-produced products I'm currently using : Apple, Google, Microsoft, IKEA, Black & Decker, Walmart...
You're probably dealing with a lot of confirmation bias.
If not, you're probably going to pull statistical data regarding the dot com bust. Failed companies during the dot com bust were a lot different than Snapchat. They had no users and were funded by clueless empty suits who thought that business success was the combination of a half-assed idea you thought up during dinner and waaay too many code monkeys working on your terrible idea with a forced deadline.
That's not what Snapchat is. Large amounts of funding from very respected investors with high success rates of investment in companies with a lot of users ... show high correlation with success.
Snapchat has a shit ton of users, runs pretty lean cost-wise (low amt of employees, small offices, efficient database/server management, etc.) as any tech company worth a shit these days will run (compared to dot coom bust, that is), continuously rolls out updates and features, and has a lot of funding. All of these very important factors when discussing a company's success.
For every example of a company that has failed with 1. had a shit ton of users, 2. didn't blow it's money on stupid shit like Aeron chairs and way too many employees (as companies during the dot com bust did), 3. has rapid development, and 4. has a lot of funding, there are 1000 companies that has succeeded like that. That's because those things are pretty good determinants of success.
User data is the current currency in Silicon Valley.
When you can't charge users for GET requests and everyone in the nation is too reluctant to spend a penny on iOS apps, the only real source of income for companies that focus on web/mobile markets is advertisement. So you work on optimizing ROI for advertisement. One way of doing such is optimizing user data analysis. Know your users' demands better -- their location, their demographic, their interests -- advertise stuff they're more likely to click on, get paid more by ad agencies. In order to analyze user data, you need, 1. "analyze" : accurate and thorough aggregation algorithms (I'm speculating that this is why Google bought Deep Mind and Zuckerberg/Thiel invested in Vicarious), and 2. "user data" : shit tons of raw data regarding your users.
And companies with a lot of users have a lot of user data. Even if Snapchat advertises ephemerality, they're really storing all of those pics on their database after they're deleted client-side (why else would servers even exist, there's no reason, technically, something like Snapchat couldn't work in pure P2P if you're really getting rid of the user data). Not to mention the metadata regarding your phone number and your friends list. While the first bit of advertisement optimization -- "analyze" -- may seem like it's not good enough at analyzing pictures and social graphs (your friends and your friends' friends and your friends' friends' friends, and your friends' friends' friends that happen to be in your friends and also your friends' friends, etc.) just yet, 1. this is why AI is becoming so popular, and 2. this is the risk the VC is taking by investing in Snapchat. Obviously every sound investment takes some risk, or else it'd be so objectively obvious that everyone would make the investment and you wouldn't get a high ROI.
The risk here is saying "user data in the form of pictures and social graphs, and whatever something like Snapchat can reasonably evolve into if we keep it surviving" is valuable.
What you're saying when you say "large amounts of funding have historically shown little correlation with success", you're talking about clueless, unexperienced investors saying that "my vague business idea when paired with hundreds of programmers and really expensive Aeron chairs is valuable".
Not only is the former much more believable, given the high success of companies that, 1. initially seemed like useless toys to short-sighted people on the Internet, but had a SHIT TON of users and a very fast development cycle and 2. gone from no-revenue to some-revenue YEARS after initial success, this is also a prediction being made by motherfucking Andressen-Horowitz.
So, no, I'd say cases like Snapchat have HIGH correlation with success. Sorry you don't have anyone to sext.