
Which Facebook billionaire will buy NYT? - davewiner
http://threads.scripting.com/31112ByDw/whichFacebookBillionaireWillBuyNyt/
======
MattLaroche
The body of the post doesn't follow the headline. (Apparently, I've ragged on
the author, Dave Winer, for similar things before
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2808050>. I came here to comment on it
and it just happens to be the same contributor/blog/etc.)

Headline: Which Facebook billionaire will buy the New York Times? (Implying a
rich employee might buy the NYT)

Body: an argument that Twitter, Facebook, Google, or another large tech
company should buy a large, reputable, news corporation. (Not a rich employee,
not Facebook specific)

I also find the argument tenuous. What is the actual cash value to Twitter
buying the New York Times? Sure, there'd be more Twitter users, but Twitter
hasn't figured out how to highly monetize their users.

The blog post is speculation without articulated rationale.

------
jacques_chester
_Billions are flowing to tech companies, founders of tech companies, and the
tech companies themselves. The companies will all need exclusive digital
content. News stories. The kind of stuff produced by news organizations. Like
the NYT._

I seem to recall this logic reaching its nadir when AOL got its peanut butter
mixed up with Times-Warner's chocolate.

I also seem to recall that it destroyed billions of dollars of shareholder
value because it was a dumb idea at the time, was a dumb idea before the time
and remained a dumb idea for the times that followed.

This kind of vertical strategy would work if somehow Twitter (to use the
example given) could supply news at a lower price than its competitors. But
people already pay literally nothing (well, no marginal price) for the news
they already receive.

Or it could be a lockin value-add play. Except that this too is daft. Is
Twitter seriously going to pay "strategy tax" and lock out non-NYT sources?
Please, be serious, it's Monday and I'm at work.

Twitter and Google and Facebook _don't need an NYT_. They don't produce
content, they mediate it. Any one source they buy can quickly be replaced by
another. And if they try to lock you into their source, they may find
_themselves_ being disintermediated.

Disclaimer: I am of the opinion that my own modest little startup will render
internet-economic questions such as these moot, so I may be a teensy bit
biased.

