I've read quite a bit about Amazon's recent (and ongoing) fight with book publisher Hachette, where they're trying to force Hachette to give them a better deal.
And apparently that's just a sign of things to come, because they're now working the same playbook (ie: screwing their customers) against Time-Warner.
If they're going to keep taking this kind of heavy-handed approach (and hosing their customers with lack of availability), that's not going to work out well for them. And it's an odd thing for Amazon to do, as they're a remarkably customer-centric organization. I guess we'll see.
Showing posts with label business. Show all posts
Showing posts with label business. Show all posts
20140514
The beats go on
I'm somewhat bemused (and confused) about the rumors that Apple is buying Beats for $3.2B, likely making the heads of Beats executives at Apple.
I'm really not sure what to make of it; Beats is certainly successful for what they're doing. I wouldn't buy them, as my priority for headphones is sound quality, not looks. But apparently I'm way into the minority on that one.
It seems, to me, that it's way out of character for Apple. Not just because it's a huge-dollar acquisition (as noted many other places, their previous-largest purchase was NeXT, at $400M), but also because I can't see how it's got anything essential for Apple. Apple's purchases are normally ones that put a key piece of technology under Apple's control.
So from both of those perspectives, it feels weird.
The only thing I can think of is that perhaps Apple sees the streaming service as being vital, somehow.
When I first heard about this, I was sure it was a joke, or written by someone with no clue about Apple. But I've now heard it from so many places, and with enough specific details, that I guess it must be happening. I am curious to see what comes of it (replacing the B logo on the sides of the cans with Apple logos?).
I'm really not sure what to make of it; Beats is certainly successful for what they're doing. I wouldn't buy them, as my priority for headphones is sound quality, not looks. But apparently I'm way into the minority on that one.
It seems, to me, that it's way out of character for Apple. Not just because it's a huge-dollar acquisition (as noted many other places, their previous-largest purchase was NeXT, at $400M), but also because I can't see how it's got anything essential for Apple. Apple's purchases are normally ones that put a key piece of technology under Apple's control.
So from both of those perspectives, it feels weird.
The only thing I can think of is that perhaps Apple sees the streaming service as being vital, somehow.
When I first heard about this, I was sure it was a joke, or written by someone with no clue about Apple. But I've now heard it from so many places, and with enough specific details, that I guess it must be happening. I am curious to see what comes of it (replacing the B logo on the sides of the cans with Apple logos?).
20140224
A couple thoughts on WhatsApp
I hadn't heard of WhatsApp until a few days before their acquisition by Facebook. I can't say as I knew anything about it, and the $19B price tag for the acquisition still seems ridiculous.
In the latest The Talk Show, Gruber is talking with Ben Thompson of stratechery (incidentally, why did I find out about this via stratechery, before is showed up on daringfireball or my podcast RSS? In fact, it still hasn't shown up on daringfireball) about the acquisition, and they talk about value per user of the acquisition, and that feels like a flawed metric to me.
That is, there's a per-user value, but it's proportional to what you can get for them. When your foreseeable cap is $1/user/yr, it's a pretty low number. They talked about value per user compared to facebook itself; well, facebook users are worth a lot more. Advertisers know much more about them, and it's much easier to put ads in front of them.
WhatsApp claims to be (and I've no reason to doubt them) against advertising, so I'm not sure that they have anywhere near the value of users in other social networks (compare with Skype, for instance, where you can monetize (some of) their communications).
Anyway, the point is that it still seems a bit crazy to me.
Although I was amused to note that my wife, being from Hong Kong, watches Hong Kong TV. After the acquisition, she told me that some of the TV shows she's watched recently have mentioned WhatsApp, but she (and her parents, who are visiting us) had no idea what they were talking about.
The one thing I wonder about (and this just occurred to me as I was writing this) is if there's a long-range play being made by facebook to link WhatsApp accounts with facebook ones, which would allow mining the communications for more targeting of people with ads elsewhere. Maybe that would allow facebook to recoup something like enough money to make it worthwhile?
(Oh, and guys, those marks are called diacritics. And FWIW, I thought, from looking at it, that it was pronounced stra-teach-ery, which now sounds even better to me, knowing that Thompson was an English teacher at one point.)
In the latest The Talk Show, Gruber is talking with Ben Thompson of stratechery (incidentally, why did I find out about this via stratechery, before is showed up on daringfireball or my podcast RSS? In fact, it still hasn't shown up on daringfireball) about the acquisition, and they talk about value per user of the acquisition, and that feels like a flawed metric to me.
That is, there's a per-user value, but it's proportional to what you can get for them. When your foreseeable cap is $1/user/yr, it's a pretty low number. They talked about value per user compared to facebook itself; well, facebook users are worth a lot more. Advertisers know much more about them, and it's much easier to put ads in front of them.
WhatsApp claims to be (and I've no reason to doubt them) against advertising, so I'm not sure that they have anywhere near the value of users in other social networks (compare with Skype, for instance, where you can monetize (some of) their communications).
Anyway, the point is that it still seems a bit crazy to me.
Although I was amused to note that my wife, being from Hong Kong, watches Hong Kong TV. After the acquisition, she told me that some of the TV shows she's watched recently have mentioned WhatsApp, but she (and her parents, who are visiting us) had no idea what they were talking about.
The one thing I wonder about (and this just occurred to me as I was writing this) is if there's a long-range play being made by facebook to link WhatsApp accounts with facebook ones, which would allow mining the communications for more targeting of people with ads elsewhere. Maybe that would allow facebook to recoup something like enough money to make it worthwhile?
(Oh, and guys, those marks are called diacritics. And FWIW, I thought, from looking at it, that it was pronounced stra-teach-ery, which now sounds even better to me, knowing that Thompson was an English teacher at one point.)
20130930
All about the brand (sizzle)
I've heard about this branding measure before, and found it a bit amusing.
But Interbrand's measure of brand worth has Apple in the top spot at $98B.
There's a couple interesting things about that. First is that it pushed Coca-cola out of the top spot (remembering that, for a long time, brand was all that Coke had going for it). The reason that's amusing is that, if Apple only made iPhones, their revenue would have still topped Coke's, last year.
The second is that specific value of the brand itself. The company's market cap (the value of all shares available for purchase) is only $438B. So the entire company is worth less than five times that value. This is another reason why Apple's current market valuation is just insanely low. (Full disclosure, I do own a bit of Apple stock, which I bought because I thought the valuation was crazy.)
But Interbrand's measure of brand worth has Apple in the top spot at $98B.
There's a couple interesting things about that. First is that it pushed Coca-cola out of the top spot (remembering that, for a long time, brand was all that Coke had going for it). The reason that's amusing is that, if Apple only made iPhones, their revenue would have still topped Coke's, last year.
The second is that specific value of the brand itself. The company's market cap (the value of all shares available for purchase) is only $438B. So the entire company is worth less than five times that value. This is another reason why Apple's current market valuation is just insanely low. (Full disclosure, I do own a bit of Apple stock, which I bought because I thought the valuation was crazy.)
20110602
Groupon-think
I just thought this was an interesting note about Groupon. The reason I think it's interesting is that they already turned down a $6B purchase offer from Google.
Granted, I didn't understand that non-deal on any level. It didn't seem to make much sense for Google, especially at that price, and I couldn't understand why the owners of Groupon wouldn't jump on that price.
This IPO makes that even more questionable. If they think the company is worth so much money, why aren't they looking for a bigger IPO? Are they just selling 10% or so of the company? If so, why not more?
Sorry, no answers here; I just thought the questions were interesting.
Update: Here's some more info about the IPO. Short answer: stay far away, if you were thinking of investing.
Granted, I didn't understand that non-deal on any level. It didn't seem to make much sense for Google, especially at that price, and I couldn't understand why the owners of Groupon wouldn't jump on that price.
This IPO makes that even more questionable. If they think the company is worth so much money, why aren't they looking for a bigger IPO? Are they just selling 10% or so of the company? If so, why not more?
Sorry, no answers here; I just thought the questions were interesting.
Update: Here's some more info about the IPO. Short answer: stay far away, if you were thinking of investing.
20110221
But a Tiny Bit Sad, as Well
It's been seeming likely that this would happen for quite a while, but now it's actually happened. Borders has declared bankruptcy. They aren't completely liquidating; from what I understand, they got a loan to keep some of the stores running for at least a while longer, but they're essentially gone.
And that makes me sad, because I remember how I felt when I went into a Borders. Given that Waldenbooks (owned by Borders; not sure if they're now all gone), B Dalton (later bought out by Barnes and Noble; not sure if any of these are still around), and Crown Books (became, or were bought by, Books-A-Million some years ago) were the only bookstores at the time, it was really exciting to see how many options were available in a Borders.
But I can see how I didn't help keep them around, either, despite how cool I used to find them. I haven't bought a book at full price at Borders in years. When they've had 30-50% coupons, I've bought a few books here and there, but I've mostly bought all my books at Amazon for many years.
And that makes me sad, because I remember how I felt when I went into a Borders. Given that Waldenbooks (owned by Borders; not sure if they're now all gone), B Dalton (later bought out by Barnes and Noble; not sure if any of these are still around), and Crown Books (became, or were bought by, Books-A-Million some years ago) were the only bookstores at the time, it was really exciting to see how many options were available in a Borders.
But I can see how I didn't help keep them around, either, despite how cool I used to find them. I haven't bought a book at full price at Borders in years. When they've had 30-50% coupons, I've bought a few books here and there, but I've mostly bought all my books at Amazon for many years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)