Subscribe To BlogRecent Acquisitions - Skype, YouTube, MySpace
Two questions I'm pondering in anticipation of next week's show.
(1) How is Web 2.0 defined (new tools? big financial deals? converging technological advances?)
(2) Is this a bubble? If so, is it likely to burst?
I want look at this from a mathematical perspective; I've heard so many anectodal comments, but it's surprising how many factual accounts I've heard. From what perspective could we look at this? # of IPOs per year? # of failed companies? VC ROI?
Well, I got to thinking about this after seeing the following illustration, courtesy of tnl.net and Google Blogoscoped.
Below is a list of many online tech companies have been sold in recent years, and for how much dinero.
Company Acquired, sorted by Price
Skype Ebay $2.6 billion
YouTube Google $1.65 billion
5% investment in AOL Google $1 billion
MySpace News Corp $580 million
dMarc Broadcasting Google $102 million
Grouper Sony $65 million
Flickr Yahoo $30-35 million (rumored)
del.icio.us Yahoo $30-35 million (rumored)
Bloglines IAC (Ask) $25 million (rumored)
Weblogs Inc. AOL $25 million (rumored)
Blogger Google $20 million (rumored)
Oddpost Yahoo $20 million (rumored)
Jumpcut Yahoo $15 million (rumored)
LiveJournal SixApart $20 million (rumored)
Rojo SixApart $10 million (rumored)
Picasa Google Under $5 million (rumored)
MeasureMap Google Under $5 million (rumored)
2.6% ownership of Baidu Google $5 million
weblogs.com Verisign $2 million
Writely Google Around $2 million (rumored)
Dodgeball Google Around $1 million (rumored)
Upcoming.org Yahoo Around $1 million (rumored)
WebJay Yahoo Around $1 million (rumored)
Urchin Google $???
Keyhole Google $???
Deja News Google $???
Any others that we're missing? See any interesting trends?
5 Comments:
I see a bunch of companies using overvalued stock to buy into speculative ventures in an industry with little or no barriers to entry and a high reliance on fad popularity.
The very value of the investments (myspace, youtube, etc) depends so heavily on "coolness" factor and being on the edge that the slightest management misstep (or a new rival with a feature that renders your service "non edge") can ruin it forever, instantly driving user traffic to the next cool thing. Once you lose the "cool" factor, its damn hard to get it back. Look at Napster. Plus the legal issues with Youtube are only beginning.
But what do Google and Yahoo care? They haven't actually spent any money! They just use stock, which dilutes the value of what every current stockholder owns, but doesn't really cost the company anything as long as the hype machine keeps their multiples up on Wall Street.
Its a dangerous life, and in the end, just as IBM, Netscape, Yahoo, and Apple discovered, in an industry with basically nothing to stop a new competitor from bellying up to the bar, some one will eventually dethrone you (Microsoft to IBM and Netscape, Google to Yahoo, PC Industry to Apple).
Interesting points...I agree with the sentiment. I thought Facebook might have made a fatal blunder when they went and added that 'feeds' functionality and pissed off their entire userbase.
Anyone have any ideas about what that might have resulted in? I wonder if users have gotten over that issue yet or if it is something that might ruin them like friendster fell apart not too long ago...
I don’t understand why people would be upset with the `feeds` I check out what my friends are up to and I see they use it so how could they use it and be upset about it being there?
I agree with the fact that they have to be "cool" in order to be viewed but, at least in Mexico, that applies to almost everything.
P.S. Happy Diwali! :)
I think youtube is subject to the whims of fad even more than myspace. On myspace, if you put a lot of effort into your page and you have an extensive network built up their, then you have a least some low level incentive to stay loyal to the service. There is a transfer cost of time and effort associated with leaving for a competitor.
Youtube is just traffic. I can't think of any way to develop a transfer cost for going to a competing service. And let's face it, most of the time I go to youtube, its to see a video clip of something that is copyrighted by someone (NBC, CBS, etc...) who hasn't given permission for their things to be placed there.
Youtube already doesn't make any money. If Google doesn't police the content better, they'll get sued out to next week just like Napster did. If they do, people will find some other way to watch the SNL bit they're looking for. And if they sart trying to charge money so that they can host copyrighted content, well, last time I looked Itunes had a pretty good corner on the copyrighted video market... and something called a video ipod.
In the end, its no lose for Google though, because like I said, its not their money they spent.
And for what it's worth, Newscorp buying Myspace was a way better deal than google buying youtube.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/28/AR2006102800803_pf.html
food for thought
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home