Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

That video came out a few years before flex appeared I think at a time they were having a sort of “resource crunch” on the heels of growth spur following the GFC.


sort by: page size:

I would imagine there's a lot more capital going around in that industry now though :)

Yeah I remember the marketing for solid caps or whatever it was kicking in after all those problems.

And it wasn't profitable then, either.

I remember that. I think it was because of demand + and earthquake in Asia or something like that.

It might have been slower. They seem to introduce these types of things first (maybe second) and then the industry follows.

They did realize it. The end game was that their suppliers would stop supplying to take more profit for themselves.

So they the only thing they could and started producing content.


Enjoyable, but I wonder what changed about the business: how was it nonviable without a huge funding round in 2000, but then only viable with significant cutbacks from 2001 on?

I think it was like that when they started, but it became more lax over time as the demand pent up.

Not really. There was a short term spike, but their year-over-year growth was much more consistent AND greater in magnitude.

As someone who was looking into the stock somewhat seriously way back then, I'll offer an alternative story. That was their first "profitable" quarter, for which they cashed in a bunch of single-use accounting gimmicks. The part that taught me the most at the time was that they then rapidly leveraged that huge rise to issue debt/equity at the new valuation. That cash infusion all but cemented what otherwise would've been quite temporary. Fascinating stuff.

A lot of companies also saw spikes in revenue, raised money from investors at sweet terms based on that revenue growth (despite it being unsustainable), and then needed to spend that money to show they were going to use it to keep the good times rolling.

When it started making them money.

That is also the time period when they started showing a profit.

it was true, from a revenue perspective.

it wasn't a good thing, but it was still a true thing.


Nah, it was because the costs of the content were always significantly higher than other content.

Wait... Did that happen? Or was it their need to be always more profitable than before?

If I understand correctly they were making significantly better money in that time frame.

I had basically forgotten about this company. They received a lot of press on how overvalued they were and there were plenty of doubts that they could sustain their success even at their peak.

this is like a decade late to notice this technique, but, yes, that market has matured a bit more since then, but mostly in the size of the budgets
next

Legal | privacy