Disqus - Latest Comments for hank777

Re: re: Hank Williams' How Much Is an Idea Worth, and the Tech Market

hank777 — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 10:37:37 -0000

I would definitely agree that a bad founder/CEO/management team can and will ruin a great idea. My main point is that people, I think too often, suggest that the idea part just isnt very important. My point is that the idea part is *really* important, and that the reason the tech market has been sucking is because of lack of good ideas. I would tend to argue that, particularly in the current market, you need both good ideas and good mgmt/execution.

Re: AngelSoft & Dinging Bells

hank777 — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 07:55:00 -0000

Thanks Nate, I'll take it :)

Re: Open Systems, Open Data, Transparency

hank777 — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:25:04 -0000

I would agree that the data is more valuable to users than the map stuff. But I do think that giving people real thumbnail dynamic insight into a site is going to become much more common and important compared to dry static homepages. As I think about what our homepage will be like, this has definitely informed my thinking. I think its going to be more important than just eye candy.

Re: Reference designery, and the proliferation of Android

hank777 — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:51:57 -0000

indeed. I had one too. It does suck now, as often happens when the original visionary leader is out the door. They cant seem to do much but tinker around the edges. I left it for blackberry.

Re: Reference designery, and the proliferation of Android

thoraxe — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:48:05 -0000

I am a big fan of the Sidekick. I have had one since the original black and white one came out, and have had almost every iteration until the Sidekick 3. Unfortunately, the Sidekick's only saving grace these days is its always-on AIM client. Everything else about it is fairly junky and I am looking forward to Android's first T-Mobile device, the HTC Dream, due shortly.

Re: Reference designery, and the proliferation of Android

hank777 — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:33:07 -0000

Good points Eric. Although at the end of the day companies are just people, and Andy Rubin, creator of the Sidekick, and creator of and head of Android could have pulled it off, and if he did, they would have been better for it I think.

Re: “Network DVR” - Part 2

hank777 — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 10:49:29 -0000

interesting extended thoughts

Re: louisgray.com: Roll Your Own Blog Leaderboard With Google Reader Trends

louismg — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 17:57:00 -0000

Hank, it wasn't that long ago that I sent you an e-mail and said I've admired your work on your personal blog and on Silicon Alley Insider. I'm glad the data here proves it true in a big way. Keep up the excellent effort.

Re: louisgray.com: Roll Your Own Blog Leaderboard With Google Reader Trends

hank777 — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:00:57 -0000

wow... #11 thanks!!!!

Re: You Can't Regulate Just One Industry And Leave The Other Alone

hank777 — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:02:34 -0000

But the reason they have distribution windows is so that they can sell you a movie ticket and then sell you a DVD or on demand play later. They make their profit by double dipping, and also, typically at least 2 people (and often a family) go to see a movie so your $20 sale would be presumably for a whole family. Also as far as I remember a substantial majority of the ticket price of a movie goes to the studio. The theaters make money on the concessions. I forget the studio/theater ratio but perhaps someone here knows what it is.

Re: You Can't Regulate Just One Industry And Leave The Other Alone

fredwilson — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:35:05 -0000

The studios get a portion of the box and its only $10/ticket

If it cost $20/download they'd keep it all and make a lot more

Re: You Can't Regulate Just One Industry And Leave The Other Alone

gregorylent — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:08:30 -0000

:-) hankwilliams... batman could have been better with a smaller budget, so much waste and union and hidden costs go into blockbusters

... your point is good though ... theaters are not going to be hurt much, it is the straight to dvd market, or post-theatrical run dvd market that will take the hit ... but the force cannot be stopped, how to deal with digital/economic realities?

Re: You Can't Regulate Just One Industry And Leave The Other Alone

hank777 — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:03:12 -0000

How would a compulsory requirement to download movies at a "reasonable" price without distribution windows generate sufficient money to pay for $150 million movies? Call me skeptical, but I just don't think what you might define as reasonable prices, particularly with unencrypted content, will generate the money necessary to make these films. If your thesis is wrong, as you would have to admit is at least possible, that would literally be the end of the blockbuster big budget movie. I don't know for sure that I am right, but gosh, if I am, is that really what we want and is it worth the risk? -- Yes I know the artsy people will say who needs batman anyway, but I, being uncultured, love a big budget summer blockbuster :).

Re: Krugman: The economics of abundance

hank777 — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 12:05:48 -0000

Hmm... "you're supposedly interested in pursuing". As you may or may not know, I have written extensively about my perspectives (and will continue to do so) both on my blog and at Alley Insider. I therefore prefer to develop these points in those places rather than in blog comments.

Re: Krugman: The economics of abundance

hank777 — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 12:05:12 -0000

deleted and moved up

Re: Krugman: The economics of abundance

mathewi — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 11:48:03 -0000

Perhaps it's best if we move on, Hank. We're now arguing about how to
argue, which is a sure sign of circularity. I do find it interesting
that nowhere in any of your comments have you addressed any of the
parts of my post that actually had something to do with the point
you're supposedly interested in pursuing.

Re: Krugman: The economics of abundance

hank777 — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 11:33:04 -0000

You havent "called me" on anything. In fact, again I point out, even Masnick agrees in his post about this that citing Rolling Stone let alone a 15 year old article from Esther Dyson is incredibly weak.

Thank you for admitting the pettiness. I'll take it. But if you had wanted to actually help me out with facts, it would indeed have been helpful to hear initially that I had misspelled it in the headline of my post so that I could correct it.

As for your final point, first you say I "of course" don't have to address every point. Then you complain that I don't address every point. I am sure this is some kind of blogosphere rhetorical technique (I am new to this), but it really doesn't seem focused on seeking the truth. Yeah yeah, I know that's not really the point of all of this anyway is it? Ok you guys win. Lets just do away with copyright, and see what happens. No one needs it anyway (oh except all the examples everyone cites).

Re: Krugman: The economics of abundance

mathewi — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 11:12:03 -0000

Hank, I don't see how Krugman's piece was an "opinion debate
masquerading as a fact debate," except that you've defined it that
way. He certainly never claimed to be building a case for a thesis
based solely on a Rolling Stone article -- which is what you implied
in your post -- and now that I've called you on it you're trying to
make his column into something it was never intended to be.

As for Mike's name, I will admit there is some pettiness there, except
that you spelled it wrong not just in your comment, but in the
headline of your post about him, and I brought it up in part because I
thought you were concerned with facts.

There's not much point in my addressing the parts of Mike's post you
chose to leave out -- as you've already made clear, your argument is
structured in such a way so that you get to exclude evidence that
doesn't fit the theory, since you're only looking for a "blockbuster"
act that has only used the Internet and never had anything to do with
the traditional label system. That's a figment of someone's
imagination. It's like saying Mike and others are describing a unicorn
and then proudly arguing that unicorns don't exist.

Re: Krugman: The economics of abundance

hank777 — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 10:49:30 -0000

This is really getting silly. First you start off with "(but you say that's not of concern to you)". You throw that sarcastic or snarky point in, I guess, to skirt or dismiss my clearly stated point that I am not attacking Krugman for his opinions but for his methods.

The fact that you don't see the problem with this sort of presentation is telling. There is a difference between an opinion debate and an opinion debate masquerading as a fact debate. The latter is what you and Mike are engaged in. Amusingly, even Masnick agrees that Krugman's article's sourcing was weak so you seem to be alone on that one.

In the category of how petty, "As for Mike Masnick (whose name you seem to be incapable of spelling properly for some reason).” As if you have never mistyped a name, word or whatever. Its just childish. I misspelled his name once in a comment. God forbid.

And finally, I am not sure what you are talking about when you say "you appeared to deliberately ignore the examples that he referred to in his piece," But I am going to guess you are referring to the fact that I did not address Flo Rida, or Maria Schneider. The reason I did not is I chose to address the issue of whether or not there were any blockbuster artists from the Internet. In this case, he cited the Arctic Monkeys as a potential blockbuster, and though I don’t really consider them Blockbusters, they are certainly closer than the others he mentioned which are clearly not. He couldn't name a blockbuster. That was the point. As I see it, given the amount of stuff that Mike throws out that is bull, selectively debunking his stuff is more than sufficient. I can’t get to all of it.

In any case, Flo Rida is an Atlantic Records artist, and while Maria Schneider sounds like, potentially someone worth researching for the Free Music Research Project, note that I said "more than a handful" regarding my assessment of the number of artists making a living as internet artists. My point is that the number is, I believe, statistically insignificant. Amusingly though, this is really a side point since all of this is, at its core, about whether or not artists need copyright. Mike thinks not, and yet all of Masnick's example artists definitively rely on copyright. Go figure.

Re: Krugman: The economics of abundance

mathewi — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 09:00:03 -0000

Whoa, Hank -- let's relax and take this a step at a time. First of
all, the Rolling Stone article isn't used to "establish a fact basis
for his argument." It's not a master's thesis at Princeton, it's a
column in a newspaper, which is often filled with opinion (but you say
that's not of concern to you). In any case, I would argue both that
the Rolling Stone article was "right" -- so far as it goes -- and that
it is a proper source for supporting commentary of the kind Krugman
was clearly engaged in.

As for Mike Masnick (whose name you seem to be incapable of spelling
properly for some reason), you appeared to deliberately ignore the
examples that he referred to in his piece, so yes, I thought that was
unfair. Obviously you can't comment on every single point, but to
leave out examples that support his case -- and then to claim that he
has no supporting evidence -- I think is pretty offside.

Re: Krugman: The economics of abundance

hank777 — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 02:20:12 -0000

Wow, I guess this stuff gets so heated that, like politics, people can't construct logical arguments. Sort of like Hillaryites arguing that Michigan should count and all the delegates should go to her.

The point is the Krugman article has a bunch or predictions and opinion from himself and Esther Dyson that are not of concern to me. Everyone is entited to their own opinion and I am fine with that. They are not entited to their own facts. The Rolling Stone article is used to establish a *fact* basis for his argument.

But the Rolling Stone quote is ridiculous. Krugman is a world class economist. Sourcing Rolling Stone to establish an economic argument about current the state of the market is not up to a Princeton economics professor's standards. This is problematic both because rolling stone is wrong, and because Rolling Stone is not a proper source for economic data whether they are right *or* wrong, unless you know something about them that I don't. There would be little debate about that from anyone actually concerned with the truth who actually thinks about such issues. So If you wish to disagree with me, fine, but at least address the topic of my piece. For example:

Are you arguing that the Rolling Stone piece is right or that it is a proper source? Or are you just arguing that since you agree with Krugman (Musnick, Arrington, et. all), that any argument construction is fair game? The ends justify the means? The imprimatur of a world class scholar means nothing in terms of standards?

Oh, and regarding my supposed "selective quoting" of Masnick, that is just pure B.S. I guess your position is if someone disagrees with you and they write long enough, say 10,000 words or so, then if you don't address every single one of their accusations then you are selectively quoting?

Beyond the fact that some of his points were, worthy of a separate post, the bottom line is I can't write a single, infinitely long piece in Alley Insider. They actually care about being interesting and readable. That said, to suggest that I took anything out of context or twisted his meaning in any way is absolutely false, dishonest, incredibly offensive, and below where I actually *thought* your standards were.

Re: James Siminoff - Free Idea for Microsoft

Siminoff — Fri, 09 May 2008 13:01:05 -0000

That is very true as has been seen in the Google/My Space ad deal. However Microsoft is trying to go head to head with Google and the only way that they can even try to get ahead is to have a HUGE source of traffic to play with. Other then Yahoo (and of course taking Google out) the only places that have that kind fo traffic are MySpace and Facebook. Of those two, Facebook definitely has a better user profile for what MSFT is attempting.

As an entreprenuer I would just buy a few small companies, inovate like crazy and try to beat everyone that way but MSFT seems to want to be more aggressive then that which only a Facebook type of purchase could accelerate them fast enough for.

Re: James Siminoff - Free Idea for Microsoft

hank777 — Fri, 09 May 2008 12:08:00 -0000

The problem is there is no evidence that anything social is monetizable at more that a few cents per user per month. Social search on facebook? IM? microblogging? plain old banner ads?

So far none of it seems really to be much of a business. Even Facebook and Myspace arent making much money in the context of the number of users they have, which is starting to be a problem at myspace. What if microsoft buys FB and it turns out the whole category is a turd? I think its possible. At least yahoo was roughly an accretive transaction. Facebook isnt anywhere close.

Re: James Siminoff - Free Idea for Microsoft

Siminoff — Fri, 09 May 2008 12:01:03 -0000

It is amazing when you think about how much a billion dollars is. For $15 billion you could buy 500 companies at $30 million a piece. The problem the big companies have is that they suck at stiching together small companies so they almost can't buy the little $30 million type of companies.

Facebook makes sense for MSFT to buy them. At $15 billion it is a shitload of money but it gives them the traffic and community to build their entire web strategy around including search, email, advertising, IM, etc. So if I was MSFT I would buy face book for $15 billion, invest another $5 billion in additional R&D around these products, possible buy a few companies to help at say the $100 million dollar level and still have invested only half of what it would have cost to buy Yahoo.

Re: James Siminoff - Free Idea for Microsoft

hank777 — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:42:26 -0000

I totally agree. My friend henry blodget is suggesting that MS should buy facebook instead, at 16-20 billion. I think that is equivalently crazy. These billions are so much money it is amazing they cant find something really productive to do with that much cash.