Does it bother anyone else that Twitter can get $55M VC Funding (USD) for a business model that even Twitter's own exec's admit they have no idea how to monitize?
Twitter, Facebook, YouTube... None of these ventures make any money, and most are hemmorhaging cash.
-mpm
The dot com magic survives!
They're talking about putting ads on twitter, which apparently has the twitteristas, well, atwitter. What the _hell_ did they expect?!?
-- Tim Wescott Control system and signal processing consulting www.wescottdesign.com
I won't bother mentioning them since I don't need the lawsuit, but I know of a new semi that got VC and the CEO is the most clueless of the clueless I ever dealt with when working for da man. Need an example? He wants a 5V device redesigned for 3V. The device has the same output specs which involves delivering a specific voltage and current. Nothing fancy like PWMing the output supply, but a constant-on device. Gee, that would imply I have to deliver a specific amount of power for the new part that is the same as the old part. He issues a memo ranting that I didn't come back with a target specification for the 3V part with lower current than the 5V part. Granted, I could have been a twit and wrote down the same current for the low voltage part, but I actually take target specs seriously. I thought he might have been sick the day they taught conservation of energy, but doing some investigation, it turns out the guy had no engineering degree at all. He was a MBA whose father was a friend of the CEO.
Same company, but here is a memo from the CEO. A product is going through a process shrink. Say the new process was sqrt(2)/2 smaller than the old process. Well how come the new chip isn't half the size of the old chip the CEO rants in a memo. Turns out the CEO didn't consider scribe, pads, etc. Seriously, these people are given tens of millions, often a hundred million to play with. I can only assume the venture capitalists are just as clueless.
OK, one more idiot CEO story. A very political situation in a company is such that one engineer essentially become his own design group by arranging to work for his brother-in-law. Now the CEO isn't a total idiot, so we get stuck going to the design reviews. Said designer has this bias circuit from hell that turns out to be some Paul Gray paper. Well it does seem to be an interesting though freakishly complicated design, but obviously one bit of circuitry is not shown, namely the start-up. There was so much feedback in the beast that it was not so obvious that it could just sit in a powered down state unless you were looking for such a condition. Fool that I am, I actually bother to study the design review and mention it has the possibility of not starting. Comments from said designer: "Do you have a Phd?" Silicon comes back, it doesn't work, and guess what...the bias doesn't start up. Mr. Phd (whom by the way was given a pile of venture money from China and the company bombed) comes back with the fix. He takes one transistor near the end of the bias circuit, ties the gate to the positive rail. The source is at ground. The current from this device will be the new bias circuit.
Now here is why the CEO was a complete idiot. If someone plops down a
30 transistor circuit in the design review, then later suggests it can be replaced with one transistor, wouldn't the most obvious question be "Why did you use 30 transistors in the first place." But it gets better. One engineer (who knows design) asks "Is that a temporary fix so the rest of the chip can be tested?" Mr. Phd says "No, this is for final silicon." My immediate comment is "Not only will you not have power supply rejection, but you will have gain from the power supply in the bias." He gets his way, the part "works", but can't be used due to poor power supply rejection. Well, make that gain.Can it get stupider? Sure. The company decided to have a layoff, and we all get RIFed. Idiot Phd. working for brother in law keeps his job. In my exit interview, they offer me another job in the company. They want me to work for the idiot Phd. My reply: "No, I rather be unemployed." Hence that started me as a contract engineer.
Back to VC, just who the hell funded Naspter and does that VC firm still exist. Even Youtube seems way overpriced at over a billion dollars when it is obviously going to spawn license lawsuits.
You're right! I totally skimmed over the whole YouTube liability angle.!! The "smartest guys in the room" will spout whatever they think will stick so that the Company can be valued at a high multiple. Yet, if you consider the downside risk of litigation (i.e., the company is fundamentally flawed when it comes to copyright!), it has no remaining value. Only a money pit for the scum-sucking lawyers. (with advance apologies to any scum-suckers out there!)
-mpm
o .
Just try as an individual to get something removed from youtube. Google asks you to contact the person that made the video. I had some photography stolen and used in a video, and basically google told me to pound sand.
Now the Hollywood companies get their stuff removed. Same with the TV networks. The TV execs wised up quickly, put their content on their websites, and ran ads. Hey, it is THEIR content.
Google make money from Youtube indirectly through advertising on the Partner channel videos. I certainly make money from it as a partner!
2009 figures here are circa $350M a year:Don't know if that pays for the server space and bandwidth or whatever, if they account for it seperately from other Adsense revenue, or whether or not it all just goes into the Google Pot of Gold.
Dave.
-- ================================================ Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast: http://www.eevblog.com
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.