Netflix plans to spend $8B to make its library 50 percent original by 2018 - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/16/16486436/netflix-original-content-8-billion-dollars-anime-films <comment><USER3> I think it's important to note that this is not by choice, but rather the only path left to Netflix now that studios have realized the value of their catalogs to streaming. Netflix originally made a bunch of content deals that made them the sole streamer of entire backlogs of syndicated material. It worked out great for them and pretty decently for the studios too, but after Netflix's success the studios now realize what they gave away. As more of those deals expire the various studios are all looking for ways to get their own streaming platform up where they own more of the profits. A Netflix where the majority of shows are originals, is just an online only version of HBO, which is a shame because the experience is still vastly superior to all the other streaming options.

In their greed the studios have basically turned one of the great internet ideas into the second coming of cable. It's understandable why they would all want their own platform but it's much worse for the consumer

<comment><USER4> You're right, but I am not sure this is the end. We are entering a "streaming content desert" where every content-maker tries to make their own Netflix. Consumers will buy subscriptions to the top 3, at best. Most probably won't go beyond Amazon Prime and Netflix. In five or ten years, when the data finally rolls in that these disparate services are not making anything, have shoddy reviews from hastily-coded backends, etc, content makers will come crawling back. Or go out of business and get scooped up by the larger media houses.

By 2030 I expect Netflix, Amazon, Disney, and Hulu will have bought up the struggling or failing independent content makers. The markets for content will shrink and consolidate around the big name streaming kings. Then we will wonder why we gave up a cable-free-for-all for an oligopoly. ;)

<comment><USER5> The hilarious thing is this is going to drive people back to engaging in piracy on various levels (i.e. ripping streaming shows for personal use and/or organized piracy groups).

The main reason for piracy's decline is $20/month for a couple streaming services is less hassle for most people in the 1st world. They are restoring the incentives that led to its rise. Its quite hilarious.

I mean if eztv hadn't been taken over I'd be going to them right now because I'm tired of the balkanization of streaming services now that even Hulu is getting knifed in the back like Netflix is. As the knives come out and the backstabbing continues because "its worth money", people will be pushed back into doing that.

<comment><USER6> > The hilarious thing is this is going to drive people back to engaging in > piracy on various levels

People aren't "driven to piracy". Piracy's a conscious decision to take what they want without paying for it.

<comment><USER7> It's a conscious decision, but that decision may be greatly influenced by the content being prohibitively expensive for them to otherwise obtain.

<comment><USER8> Sure, but that's the basic deal for any situation involving self-control and moral freedom.

There's an act you would like to perform, but it's unwise/moral/sinful/suboptimal. Do you do it or not?

<comment><USER9> Glad you asked! But some people may disagree with your premises rather than directly with your conclusions.

\- if you steal that's bad - few people disagree with this

\- if you sell unauthorized copies of someone else's thing, that's bad - <USER2> people disagree with this.

\- if you make and watch an unauthorized copy of someone else's thing, but only for yourself, that's bad - most people kind of disagree with this, especially if in a vacuum.

\- same as above, but you make minimum wage (because the economy is only growing for the 1%, not because you're lazy) at 2 jobs and you like 1 tv show from 6 Netflix clones and you think 6x12$/month is too much when you're already paying 100$+ for cable TV and internet and share a small apartment with 2 roommates, and student loans, and you don't have healthcare, so you pirate 3 tvshows. - you'll probably mentally rewrite this as "no, they were lazy, otherwise they'd be getting VC funding for their 3rd startup like me", but most people probably don't think this is wrong if they don't apply egocentric mental rewrites of reality. And of course, if the response to this person's "personal problems" is "not my problem, piracy objectively bad", then of course the correct response would be "somebody watched your video for free, not my problem".

\- the content cannot be legally acquired in your country - probably less people find this bad.

\- you pirated the content because you don't think the people who would profit deserve money - I would consider it ethical to pirate EA games and unethical to pirate most indie games. If ISIS (terrorist organisation) released a TV show, are you going to defend their IP rights?

\- you pirated content because you don't believe in property rights - this one can be interesting. The USA's philosophical mind share is heavily propertarian, but how do you convince someone they stole your TV show view count (worth less than 10$ this month) when they believe you are sitting on top of the stolen value of the entire real estate of North America (stolen from the natives) and labor (some literally stolen from Africa, others where someone worth twice minimum wage in profits is paid minimum wage), then you have the balls to acuse them of theft? In fact, if you don't believe in property rights, then you think the gate keeping on this video is a form of theft, since without the right, it belongs to everyone.

"Piracy is theft, there are no valid nuances" isn't a good position.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is something I expect them to reach fairly quickly, not necessarily through new content: Netflix has steadily carried less and less content from other companies as long as I've been a subscriber. They carry least-common- denominator content in the back catalog plus a few limited time recent movies to keep people hooked.

What I've realized is most well-regarded, award-winning film cannot be found on Netflix. They will easily reach 50% original content, mostly because they'll just continue dropping everyone else's content over time.

Thankfully, their original content alone is pretty much worth the price.

<comment><USER11> The problem is though, is that by doing this it is no longer the service that originally attracted many users: a one stop service to watch the things I want to watch.

It is just becoming the internet equivalent of an unlimited on-demand cable channel.

<comment><USER10> True, but the reality is: Disney is going their own way. HBO, DC, CBS are all going their own way. The idea of a "one stop shop", also known as _a monopoly_ doesn't make sense as soon as the market is large enough for multiple players.

Netflix doesn't want to pay the prices they'd have to in order to remain a one-stop shop, it certainly isn't practical at $9.99 a subscription.

There's no way the $100 a month cable subscription was suddenly going to be replaced by a $10 a month subscription. Now you can get CBS All Access, Netflix, Hulu, HBO GO, the new DC comics streaming service, the new Disney streaming service, a couple more probably, and you'll still be paying $100 a month... just a la carte for the channels you want.

<comment><USER12> HBO is owned by WB, DC is leveraging WB to build their streaming service. Disney and WB both have a stake in Hulu.

So the realistic remaining players after the dust settles would be Disney+Hulu, CBS, Netflix, and Amazon. And of those 4, CBS lacks the capital or content to compete with the other 3 and given their relatively friendly relationship with WB, I can see them integrating into the Disney/Hulu heavyweight.

<comment><USER10> What you 'see' lacks a lot of understanding.

\- CBS remains the dominant power in network TV, shows like NCIS, Big Bang Theory, etc.

\- CBS has always been the standout in refusing to offer their shows over Hulu, feeling they have enough independent value of their own.

All Access has it's weaknesses, but it's also one of the cheapest offerings ($5.99 to watch with commercials), and CBS easily has the content to work with. Discovery alone is worth the cost of admission, and for anyone who also watches CBS' network shows, it becomes an easy sell.

Again, at the end of the day, these businesses are based on a $100 a month cable package model. All of this content is not going to keep being made at $10 a month offerings. Either you're going to end up with ten services, or the three or four services you see 'consolidating' will end up costing $25 a month each.

<comment><USER12> Dominant meaning the smallest of the big 4 (Disney, Comcast, Fox, CBS) along with being the only one with a dropping stock price YoY in a bull market? (+3.2%, +16.6%, +25.1%, -8.25%)

Discovery is my favorite show at the moment, but one show can't carry a company.

<comment><USER10> I will restate what I wrote above: CBS is the _number one network channel_. There are a big three: CBS, NBC, and ABC.

Disney owns the third biggest channel, Comcast owns the second biggest channel. Fox isn't even on the playing field, and is cashing in their entertainment arm.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Online movie services are a disappointment because the selection is terrible.

Go to IMDB.com. Pick a random movie. Click on the director to see more movies by him or her. Choose one. Click the lead actor to see more movies with him or her. Choose one. Click the studio to see more movies by them. Choose one.

Why can't I do this with any streaming service?

There's no decent search and filter ability because there's not enough selection to support it. The interfaces are all geared toward suggesting what you might like, not letting you search for what you know you want, or filter out what you know you don't.

Want to see only Best Picture winners? Only 5-star PG movies? Only detective films from before 1970? Nope. Sorry, not enough selection. Maybe you'd like this new drama we just made?

Technically, we could have a service with every movie ever made. But we don't, for stupid business reasons.

If we ever get a service with a decent selection, it won't be possible for it to have 50% original content because it would take a hundred years of solid filming to get there.

<comment><USER14> I regularly use [https://www.justwatch.com](https://www.justwatch.com) for looking up movies. But its scraping abilities leave a lot to be desired; they are often wrong. And the data is not very transparent (e.g. historical data).

I have considered creating an alternative. And have the client choose the streaming services they have like JustWatch. However, for unavailable movies, have a "I'd watch this if it were streaming for me" button. Then I'd record the cross-section of that user's streaming services and their request and keep public counters. I'd remove all users votes if that movie became available for any of their streaming options. I'd show votes for movie per streaming subscription service. Also, in the interest of transparency, I'd keep a running history of when movies came and went from providers. I'd also scrape TV guide to see when they are on TNT or whatever. This is the type of data people deserve.

Aside: JustWatch people, I know you browse HN...you can steal this idea and monetize it by, instead of being nice like me and making the votes transparent, just keep the counters internal and sell them as data points. You can couple it into a "I'd watch this! Notify me when this movie is available" feature.

<comment><USER15> > But its scraping abilities leave a lot to be desired; they are often wrong.

If you spot any mistakes, especially ones that are consistent and happen frequently (wrong price on a provider,...) feel free to email us at data- email@example.com and we'll take a look. We are very responsive when it comes to that and are constantly improving our scraping infrastructure to stay as accurate as possible. Unfortunately it'll always be a bit of catching up if you scrape hundred of third party providers in more than 30 countries that constantly change their APIs or websites :)

As for the "notification" system. That's definitely something that we think about, stay tuned!

Disclaimer: I work on the JW scraper

<comment><USER14> By "often wrong" above, I should clarify that I find maybe a mistake a week browsing hundreds. I don't want to give anyone the wrong impression that it is wrong most of the time or anything. I do report incorrections through the app. I love the feature that allows me to put in my email to get notified when the issue is fixed, I wish more companies did this (granted I only put my email on a small percentage of the issues I find). To date, I have not seen anything systemic though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I wish they would spend more money on finding old films and digitizing them. There have to be vaults of old Italian films that don't have significant licensing costs. Sure, I may represent a small segment of their paying customers, but I find myself using Amazon's video service more and more because of this. To me, a newly released old movie has similar value to a newly released new movie, and I bet the former can come cheaper and faster (I personally am mostly done w/ TV shows and often consider the format a protracted way to consume my time over a standalone movie).

<comment><USER16> The problem is that there is also a vanishingly small audience of people who want to watch old Italian films (or old films from anywhere, really).

The mass audience only cares about the new releases. This has been true since the dawn of home video; anyone who ever browsed the shelves of a Blockbuster store will remember how lopsided the selection was -- entire walls filled with copies of the latest releases, a few shelves with movies released over the last ten years, practically nothing farther beyond that. They didn't stock that way because they wanted to, they stocked that way because recent movies where what their customers wanted to rent.

Even universally-acknowledged classics are hard to market to the mass audience -- there are tons of people who flat out refuse to watch _anything_ in black and white, for instance.

<comment><USER14> I agree the audience is currently small, but I don't agree it is getting smaller. People rediscover eras and genres.

The good part for Netflix vs Blockbuster is that this is a one-time cost and it will be digitized forever. You don't have to market it to a mass audience or attempt to determine the number of VHSs you'd have to create. I don't think they need to market it at all. Just do it. Surely it is only a fraction of the cost of having Will Smith in a Police-Alien movie and it'll boost your catalog.

<comment><USER17> > _I agree the audience is currently small, but I don 't agree it is getting > smaller. People rediscover eras and genres._

Slowly enough to not matter and always stay a niche endeavour.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I get why they feel they need to do this, but I hate the trend of everyone taking their ball and going home. I loved how with Netflix, I had most of the content I would want right there on a single service.

Note to content providers: I'm not going to have Disney, Netflix, HBO, CBS, Hulu, etc subscriptions. It's just not going to happen. I'll do without first.

<comment><USER19> I sense a resurrection of torrenting and ironically enough, DVD rentals. BTW, Netflix still has a very rich library of streaming content, but in other world regions. A good global VPN service and some DNS tweaks will unlock a ton of streaming content.

<comment><USER20> _A good global VPN service and some DNS tweaks will unlock a ton of streaming content._

Can you recommend something the works? I used to have a couple of different ones, but Netflix got really good a blocking VPNs a while back so I kind of gave up.

<comment><USER19> You are right, it is a bit of cat and mouse game, but I have been quite successful at using a Nordvpn's French and Brazilian pops (for at least the past 6 months). You have to also modify your client DNS settings to either use European/S. American DNS servers (plenty of free ones) so that Netflix's apis will resolve to the proper region, otherwise you will get only NA catalog, even if you are on VPN. good luck!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This seems like a huge opportunity for Hulu or whatever service the 21Fox/Disney deal leads to. HBO has long proven that there is tremendous value in originals, but having a really broad base of legacy content seems like it could attract a ton of people who don't place the same value on new shows.

<comment><USER22> A lot of TV shows and movies are now only available on Hulu. I've started subscribing, and am seriously considering dumping Netflix.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I really enjoy a lot of Netflix originals, but I wish they would direct more energy into improving their streaming library's 3rd party content. There are so many films only available via their DVD service, which I (and many others) no longer use.

<comment><USER24> Netflix simply can't afford the licensing fees. All the other movie companies are trying to put Netflix out of business and aren't going to charge them anything like a reasonable rate.

<comment><USER3> It's worse than that. Studio's are simply declining to license their stuff to Netflix for streaming at all. Losing Disney was incredibly telling because their catalog is so big and diverse I can't imagine that Netflix wasn't willing to write a blank check to ensure they didn't lose access to that content. The children's movies alone would be worth the cost.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm more and more disappointed in their content. I'm sure some people love their original content, but I am not one of them. Nevertheless, I stick with Netflix because their UI for navigating it all, while not perfect, is far better than the other streaming services. And they have easy to use profiles including a 'Kids' option.

But if any other provider catches up to their UX, I'll drop Netflix in a second.

</comment><comment><USER26> From what I understand Netflix is pretty smart about where/what they film to take advantage of tax credits and other incentives countries provide. So that $8B really stretches.

Seems like they are at the point where they need to keep their head above water long enough to let other content providers try/decide if it's worth trying to compete in the streaming business.

</comment><comment> King-Aaron How about spending $8B to make the current library of titles available to more regions...

</comment><comment><USER27> $8B could add a lot of good movies that are currently absent from the collection. Original content is probably a better financial move, but my impression of the quality of shows on Netflix is not high.

<comment><USER26> Netflix original content is a mixed bag. They have some really good shows, and some more forgettable ones that are the type you throw on for background noise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Considering this means a lot of low quality sitcoms and endless comic book television series (until the next fad is made manifest), its hardly a value proposition.

</comment><comment><USER29> this is likely to be an unpopular opinion but I hope they produce content that is also family appropriate. It doesn't have to suck or be cliche, just be relatively clean. Too much of the original content I am seeing is TV-MA. If they do this they will enfranchise many families to ditch cable than would otherwise have done so.

</comment><comment><USER30> well, if their catalog grows to 50% original content, here's hoping netflix adopt more UK/HBO style formats for tv shows.

have a clear defined arc lasting ~3 seasons with 6/8 episodes in each season..and then just stop.

point in case, house of cards should have been a 2 series show with frank never becoming President.</comment>


Iterative Implementation of Quicksort - <AUTHOR> http://www.techiedelight.com/iterative-implementation-of-quicksort/ <comment><USER2> easy to follow!</comment>


Your Phone Loses Value Pretty Fast (Unless It's an iPhone) - <AUTHOR> http://priceonomics.com/phones/#cell-phone-depreciation <comment><USER4> The thing with lumping all 'Android' together is that it gives the wrong picture. Similar to lumping all PCs.

When you buy anything non-Apple, you have to be a smart buyer. This can be good or bad, depending on your world view.

If you compare premium non-Apple brands, they compare favoribly to Apple. For example, my Nexus S was $300 off contract (brand new). This is much cheaper than the comparable iPhone 4 at that time, retains good resale value, and will probably be fast enough/supported for as long as the iPhone 4. On the PC side, ThinkPad T/X series offers similar (or even better!) reliability/cost effectiveness/resale value to MacBooks. For example, the x220 series configured new at lenovo will cost ~1000. Current resale puts it at around 800, which is better than the MBP (for e.g. base at $1249, refurb @ apple for $1049, and resale at around $950).

<comment><USER5> Even if you break out Samsung, Motorola, HTC, etc. you will still have the same problem within each manufacturer's lineup. Comparing individual phone models is logical but nobody does it for some reason.

It seems that people always want to compare the iPhone (a single hardware line) to Android (software) which is just bizarre.

<comment><USER6> Resale value is also being measured as a percentage MSRP, which makes sense for the iPhone, as it isn't really available for anything but MSRP, but isn't as realistic for most Android phones that can often be had for less than MSRP.

<comment><USER7> So Android phones lose value just sitting on the shelf.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > At Priceonomics, we firmly believe that resale value is the best objective > indicator of product quality.

Really? It might be a decent indicator of product quality relative to other products on the market, but even then, plenty of extrinsic factors - <USER2> speculative bubbles to the lack of knowledge of longer-term product quality - can influence the perceptions of relative value that drive market prices.

That aside, how indicative of the overall market for phones is the specific segment of those who buy second-hand phones? Unlike houses or cars, few people actually buy used phones, and those who buy new phones aren't usually thinking about resale price at their initial time of purchase.

Does resale price really say a lot about the underlying product quality of a mobile phone?

<comment><USER9> High resale value seems like it would correlate most strongly with high initial cost and high popularity - more people would prefer to buy a used one if the initial cost is higher since they can't afford the initial cost, so both increase the demand. Android/Blackberry popularity is spread over many more models than the iPhone, and are usually cheaper.

"We firmly believe", on the other hand, is not an indicator of anything. "We've defined quality in such a way that" would be more apt - quality is a hard-to-define term, and they don't even try.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> One explanation: The rapid rate of change in Android phones vs Iphones?

Consider if a car company released 4 model updates per year instead of one.

Your Hyandai 2013 Quarter 1 would depreciate faster as the 3 newer models came out (granted that each new model would have more/better features - <USER3> seats, leather, auto drive, whatever).

So as an iPhone buyer/owner, you know your phone will be state of the art for foreseeable future, where as with Android, you phone will be (perceived anyway) as antiquated, much more rapidly.

<comment><USER11> 20 months ago, I paid a lot of money for my Android phone when I signed on for a three year contract. Just a couple of weeks ago, my wife replaced her phone and got an Android phone for free with her contract. Her phone is lighter, faster and slicker than mine and has significantly longer battery life.

That in itself can explain the depreciation rate: new Android phones are so much better and cheaper than old Android phones that the old ones can't compete except at a very low price point.

<comment><USER12> 3 year contract??? That is horrible.

<comment><USER13> In Canada, that's pretty normal. They lock you in tight. We're disadvantaged in almost every way when it comes to mobile carriers. Horrible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "At Priceonomics, we firmly believe that resale value is the best objective indicator of product quality."

I may have missed something, but given that prices are supposed to reflect the supply vs demand ratio (in a sane market), how can they end up "firmly" believing that resale value is an objective indicator for quality ?

<comment><USER15> Because they like Apple and have some "data" that shows Apple is better. The only missing piece is _how_ that data makes Apple better, and that's what this statement is for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The lesson here is to buy used phones outright for cheap and hasten the decline of carrier lock-in. That's what I got out of the article at least.

The difference in depreciation between iphones and androud seemed pretty small to me, and probably represents the overall inflated price of the half-eaten fruit logo. I see laptops on craigslist with similar specs: $2000 for Mac and ~$500 for Dell. Like Billy Beane, I buy cheap and undervalued.

<comment><USER17> I have got the exact opposite lesson: a 1 year old iPhone has lost 25% of its value, and it loses another 25% of the original value the next year. So you lose the same amount with an older phone

In other words - imagine a rich person buying a new iPhone every year and selling the old one to his poor friend. Both of them eventually pay the same amount for the phone, but the poor friend got a used one.

<comment><USER18> I think you might be misreading the graphs. According to the article a 1 year old iPhone depreciates by about 40%, and a 2 year old iPhone depreciates by around 65-70%.

Thus, a person selling their 1 year old iPhone would fail to recoup 40% of the sticker price overall while someone buying 1 year old phones and selling them a year later would fail to recoup all but 25% of the sticker price, give or take.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> "Our data suggests that buying an iPhone is a better economic decision"

Wow, what a leap. Is the author aware the purchasing a phone for resale value is actually NOT the main reason to purchase a smartphone? Any article that starts by quoting MG Siegler should immediately be discounted anyway.

<comment><USER20> To be fair the followed it right up with a critical quote, but I agree.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> It's an interesting analysis, but I don't see how the results would affect my buying decision _at all_. What's the actual dollar amount difference in reselling an iPhone for 53% of original price vs Android at 42%? Maybe $50-$80? How much in carrier fees have I spent over that 18 months? Well over $1000.

The difference in resale value versus the entire expense of owning these phones is insignificant. Or at least it's not significant enough to outweigh the preference one might have for a given phone. What if the numbers were flipped? How many iPhone owners would choose to switch to Android if they knew they could save $70 over the next year and a half?

<comment><USER22> They lost me with this: _Skip those extra GBs on your iPhone. An additional 8GB of hard drive costs you an extra $100 upfront but only adds $10 to the resale value of your phone. The secondary market doesn't value extra hard drive space on an iPhone, so get the one with the smallest amount of disk space._

Hey fellas - there is more to a phone than resale value. If you're only thinking about how much you can sell it for at the end of possession, then I think I'll give your review a skip.

<comment><USER21> I found their opening quotes to be a bit at odds with the rest of their logic:

 _"It's probably hard for a Mercedes owner to describe to a Honda owner how attention to detail makes their driving experience better."_

Right, and said Mercedes owner probably isn't going to buy a Honda next time just because it holds its resale value better.

<comment><USER22> Looking at that particular quote is a bit weird for me. I bought a second-hand Honda from a Mercedes dealership (obviously a trade-in), and the one thing the merc salesdude kept rabbiting on about was how reliable and mechanically sound Hondas are. I guess it depends on where you focus your 'attention to detail' :)

(The car has been pretty robust, and yes, the passenger capsule wouldn't be as nice as in a merc... but then again, when new these things go for half the price of a merc)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I stopped reselling my electronics and just give them away to whomever needs them - somehow, that's less depressing than knowing I bought something for $500 and now I sell it for $100 (and my stuff looks like new even after years of use).

Buying used smartphones, on the other hand, is great - you can get a G2X or a Dell Venue Pro (excellent Windows 7 phone) for under $300 easily, and it will work just as well as any other phone (especially the G2X with a custom ROM)...

</comment><comment><USER24> "At Priceonomics, we firmly believe that resale value is the best objective indicator of product quality."

I'd say it indicates the speed of improvement--whether quality has topped out, or is still improving.

Resale value for a hammer in a year migh be close to 100% of its original value. It might be used and scratched, but it still works as new, and there aren't any new revolutionary hammers out on market. Same with DSLR lenses, for example.

Top end MTB bikes are of very high quality, a joy to ride. But they depreciate sometimes by 50% in a year: new models are out, lighter, stronger, better- handling and everyone wants to upgrade.

<comment><USER25> _Top end MTB bikes are of very high quality, a joy to ride. But they depreciate sometimes by 50% in a year: new models are out, lighter, stronger, better-handling and everyone wants to upgrade._

be careful. Some high-end MTB brands depreciate more than others, which is the exact point this article is promoting about phones.

<comment><USER24> And I'm saying it might be not because of difference in immediate quality, but because some brands have found their working formula and slowed down experimenting, while others continue cranking out new stuff.

Brooks saddles look the same, act the same and cost the same now as 20 years ago. A saddle that has been sitting in warehouse for 5 years would probably have about the same market value as saddle made this year. I'm no Brooks expert but that's the impression I get.

Shimano on the other hand updates its component groups each year. Their products are highly evolved already, but still they find things to improve. So people upgrade.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I realize this isn't quite the point of the article, but I have a $29.99 Nokia phone I've been using for years and I'm pretty sure I can resell it for at least $20. Non-smart phones hold their value best of all.

<comment><USER27> some are even worth more than they were origianally.

[http://www.itp.net/553344-hackers-pay-top-dollar-for-old- nok...](http://www.itp.net/553344-hackers-pay-top-dollar-for-old- nokia-1100-handsets)

i've found that nokias sell well second hand. i wouldn't recommend an iphone second hand as they are much more fragile than old solid nokias. i've seen a number of iphones that the mic or wifi no longer works on and knowing the users i don't think they abused the devices that much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> It's pretty amazing that we pay ~$90 a month to Verizon but only ~$13 a month to Apple. Intuitively it feels that Apple is the one creating most of the value.

<comment><USER29> You're aware that Verizon is also paying Apple right? The $200 you paid for your iPhone turns into $600 for Apple.

<comment><USER28> The post looks at the no-contract prices, so it assumes you paid ~$600 for the phone and then sold it for ~$300 18 months later.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Nice job leaving the rest of the headline off.

I've sold each model iPhone to date for more than I paid for it, even when paying full (unlocked) rate. Apparently people consider there to be significant value in a no contract phone.

<comment><AUTHOR> Absolutely. A lot of those no-contract phones end up going abroad, where people are willing to pay heavy premiums for the latest and greatest.

<comment><USER31> he probably sold the previous version (to get the newer one).

<comment><USER30> Yes, I was selling prior versions. But also yes, they went usually to Puerto Rico or Russia.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> More fodder for discussion here: [http://allthingsd.com/20120117/secondary- iphone-market-a-boo...](http://allthingsd.com/20120117/secondary-iphone- market-a-boon-for-att-verizon-and-apple-too/)

Turns out that the secondary market for the iPhone is nearly as robust as the primary market. And it's growing steadily larger and more important for Apple's carrier partners, and for Apple itself.

</comment><comment><USER33> No doubt there is a robust resale market for iPhones, but if I'm not mistaken, this article fails to take into account initial subsidized market prices when making it's lifetime value calculations. Yes, iPhones are subsidized too, but not completely; whereas most Android phones are not subject to the same price- fixing policies, and can be purchased via authorized Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, or T-Mobile resellers at significant discounts. In fact, 90% of Android phones -- even those with unsubsidized price tags of $500 -- can be purchased for FREE (or sometimes $.01) with a contract from a carrier-authorized retailer such as Amazon or Wirefly. So yes, if you walk into the Verizon store and pay $200 for a Droid 3, your lifetime cost may end up being higher than an iPhone. But if you have a brain, and get your Droid 3 from an authorized Verizon dealer, you pay $0 for the exact same product, and the math shifts rather quickly.

</comment><comment><USER34> Quoting Shakespeare at the end of the post sounds a little forced.

</comment><comment><USER35> The iphone is an ipod touch on the secondary market. But a used Android phone looks pretty much useless to most people, especially when you can get a new phone for free or cheap. The Google Galaxy Nexus is now $99 on Amazon Wireless -- quite a bit cheaper than any comparable iphone. It's interesting that we used to throw away cell phones but now they have value.

</comment><comment><USER36> I have an EVO 4G from Sprint. It's less than 2 years old (still on the original contract) but it's been EOL'd by Sprint. What's funny is that you can still buy it from them, get a new contract for 2 years starting from now, but they've already guaranteed that there will be no updates for it anymore.

</comment><comment><USER37> Unsurprising since phones are ditched by carriers after they're sold (orphaned android user).

<comment><USER38> Is your android phone that got ditched locked -- and the carrier would not unlock it even after ditching it?

<comment><USER37> There's newer firmware updates but they won't release them. Perhaps other carriers have newer updates for my phone but i'm on a contract.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> This is an incredibly interesting article though I would urge you to include some methodology. With some proper evidence behind these bold statements, you'd be making headlines at TechCrunch (you still might anyways)!

Great read, I'm now interested in your business.

</comment><comment><USER40> Percentages themselves do not tell the whole story. Better to use the total cost of ownership.

A $1000 phone that loses 35% of its value ($350) compared to a $500 phone that loses 50% of its value ($250) can put things into perspective.

<comment><USER41> This needs to be taken into account, thanks for bringing this up, didn't think about it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Disagree with "A high resale value is the market telling you, 'this is a good car.'"

A high re-sale value is the market telling you this is a well-regarded car brand. The car itself could be the biggest lemon on the lot.

<comment><USER42> also this line "Never trust anyone under 30 with a BlackBerry."

So now we're supposed to judge something as complex as a person's trustworthiness based on their consumerist choices? I understand it's meant to be taken as an offbeat joke but as humorous as it's meant to be, statements like that make me feel troubled and mildly depressed. I'd really not like people to define me based on what phone I have :( Let's just have a beer and talk instead :\

<comment><USER43> I don't really understand that quote. Will someone explain?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Look at the "Crackberry Index" chart. Does anyone else get the feeling they have too few datapoints to reach any meaningful conclusion?

</comment><comment><USER45> i think that variance is pretty crucial in this case. With iphones you always have a high end device whereas the quality of android phones differ greatly. i would still expect iphone to come out the best but still a comparison to samsung galaxies would make more sense

<comment><USER46> Just sold my hacked droid Incredible (the original) for $400 fwiw.

<comment><USER47> You got lucky with a seriously naive buyer. Going by VZ's listed (usually inflated) price, the Incredible 2[1] goes for $430 brand new; so your buyer either thought your hacking was worth the $200 (at least) premium or just failed to do research.

[1] [http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?item=pho...](http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?item=phoneFirst&action=viewPhoneDetail&selectedPhoneId=5641)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I would hesitate to buy a used phone because these things like phones and computer keyboards and mice that people constantly handle have the highest level of germs, and getting germs and grease and stuff out of the various nooks and crannies without damaging the electronics looks hard.

<comment><USER48> That's an insane reason. Just by being in the same room as other people you expose yourself to more germs than you would by touching a used and cleaned phone.

<comment><USER38> I have seen news reports of studies done by public-health researchers who worry about computer keyboards and phones after measurements showed surprisingly high numbers germs on these items.

It might be that the researchers were worried only about germs that can survive for only a few days or cannot survive the type of cleaning achievable without completely disassembling the phone, but it is not _obvious_ to me that that is the case. For example, one hears about these biofilms that allow germs to survive for very long times.

What are your reasons for believing that just being in the same room as other people exposes a person to more germs?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Who cares?</comment>


RepRap: The Self Replicating DIY 3D Printer in Your Home - <AUTHOR> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/johnecker/reprap-diy-3d-printing-in-your-home

<comment><AUTHOR> Does anyone have any predictions for what applications 3D printers could have in the future? What about a food processor like the Jetsons? A machine that can print food.</comment>


China's Proposal to Ban Crypto Mining Has Little to Do with the Environment - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerhuang/2019/04/25/chinas-move-to-ban-cryptocurrency-mining-has-little-to-do-with-the-environment/ <comment><USER2> Well bitcoin is particularly wasteful because of the way of handles decentralized proofs in a way that scales the difficulty to make it consume more computing power based upon all the participants. This property isn't inherent in the blockchain technology and so the core argument of this article that because the Chinese government are testing blockchain based tech they aren't banning mining for environmental purposes is false. I'm sure there are other reasons they want to ban it but anyone with knowledge of the wastefulness of cryptomining and the fact that most of their power comes from burning coal it is hard to cry about the banning being disingenuous.</comment>


Lead Front-End Designer/Engineer – Toronto, ON - <AUTHOR>

Your main responsibility will be to create user interface for our clients to administer their promotional offers and online sampling strategies. They will rely on Sampler's UI to make important decisions regarding the objective and design of their campaign. Sampler's UI will need to be beautifully designed and easy to navigate. We hope to find someone who is passionate about design and ready to take on this exciting challenge with us.
You will be the architect of that system component. You will start planning and wireframing the new UI in cooperation with the product & sales team. With support from the backend team, you will design and build an easy to use, understandable and extendable UI. The current front-end is built with Extjs but we are open minded to use other frameworks that might better suited for the job.
Further down the road, you will help us to extend the front-end dev team and participate in design and code reviews.
Requirements:
- 3-5 years experience in Front-End development
- Good knowledge of JavaScript + jQuery, CSS3 and HTML5
- Familiar with MV* patterns and with at least one front-end JS framework (ExtJS, Meteor.js, AngularJS, backbone.js, …)
- Product ownership: you are passionate about your design and your code
- Goal oriented: you have experience working with strict timelines
- Team Player: you love to discuss different solutions with your team
Preferred:
- Mobile / responsive design knowledge
- Experience in UX design
- Project management knowledge
Perks:
- Use the environment you like (Mac/Windows/Linux)
- IDE of your choice
- Negotiable salary based on experience
- Employee stock options <comment><USER2> Do you need a mid-level front-end developer? I'm also planning to relocate to Toronto. How can I contact you? thanks</comment>


About the 80 million dollars Blue (#0044cc) - <AUTHOR> http://www.vcarrer.com/2010/03/about-80-million-dollars-blue-0044cc.html

<comment><USER2> Virtually no one calibrates their monitor so your carefully defined 24bit colours are going to hit eyeballs in all sorts of different forms.

<comment><USER3> The author didn't account for gamma correction [0] at all, so the math is meaningless. I mean, if the "Pareto Principle" numerology didn't tip you off.

[0] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1141971>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> That was one of the most incomprehensible essays I've read in a long time.

What was he even trying to say?

<comment><USER5> He also uses the "<>" operator for inequality, which is unforgivable in my book.

<comment><USER6> Lots of languages use <> for not equals.

<comment><USER7> Lots of languages do, but not English.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm perfectly aware that this article is not easy to understand.

Here is small summary:

In the <http://live.visitmix.com/MIX10/Sessions/CL06> the color #0044cc was indicated like the color that brings Bing 80$ million dollars

I calculate the number #0033cc is better than #0044cc

By accident I find out that the Bing is actually is using #0033cc not #0044cc

So the question remains why the number #0044cc was used in the presentation. Is it pure author mistake or something else?

Anyway there is no "perfect number" or "perfect color". Every color should be balanced properly with all other colors in order to obtain proper results.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm no color theorist, but it's confusing to me why he would think the numbers for the perfect blue have to add up to 255 across _all_ three channels. By that logic, wouldn't the perfect color white would be R:85 G:85 B:85 (or #555555)?

</comment><comment><USER9> I love how there is no actual USAGE of the color in the article. :-P

<comment><USER10> He probably can't afford it.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Hoppy Tap – craft beer nanoservice in beta (BK area only) - <AUTHOR> Hi, we've built a text message based service that sends you a text with a recommendation for the freshest, tastiest beer in the city according to your likes. Oh did we mention it's prepaid, so all you do when you get to the bar is send us a text and we alert the server?! And since it's text, you can do it all through your siris and your smartwatches...<p>The site is hoppytap.co and if you're in Brooklyn , email email@example.com and we'll send you the invite code for a free beer :] <comment><USER2> What technology is used for conversation?

<comment><AUTHOR> Twilio for sms messages, working well.</comment></comment>


Silicon Valley Tightens Its Grip on Free Speech - <AUTHOR> http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/silicon-valley-tightens-its-grip-on-free-speech/ <comment><USER2> I wonder what constantly being mad at everything does to our psyche.

</comment><comment><USER3> What a jumbled illogical mess of an argument. The author confuses free speech, monopolistic tendencies, and censorship but doesn't make a solid point about any of them. Instead, they skip from one topic to another without real evidence or thought.

<comment><USER4> Basically, I think he's saying that Google and Youtube have altered their search algorithms to bias towards progressive values and demote (rank lower) non-progressive posts.

Also, he's saying people have had their accounts cancelled because their accounts were flagged as "hate speech" (even if it wasn't) and that doing so, was biased.

Also, some companies are aggressively forcing their employees to subscribe and support certain political ideas. I won't name names, but I've also felt this at one place I worked. Here's how it works. Managers engage their subordinates on political matters, asking them "what they think". And if you don't agree with their views, you may be negatively sanctioned, in the future (this is implied, not specifically spelled out).

<comment><USER5> I felt like that at my previous job(startup) everyone was very progressive and if you disagreed with any progressive ideologies you would be socially shunned.

Being rather moderate (which is a republican in my state and I am slightly left of them) and a skeptic you would only be ostracized for thinking anything but what Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren preaches. No one likes someone who questions everything because they see politics as akin to faith.

This propensity to ostracize people only pushes them further away from center because they will only discuss things with people who won't shame them and of course that will be online.

Now I work at a financial firm and we have a lot of liberals and republicans and they are all willing to speak their mind because politics here has nothing to do with who your friends are.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Seems like a response to GoDaddy and Google kicking the Daily Stormer off of their registration/hosting platforms.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is just asking various world governments to regulate or force google to do stuff.

Its not going to end well.

Riots are the voices of the unheard - Martin Luther King Jr

</comment><comment><USER8> employees in Google's ad sales department are "openly encouraging Adwords customers to pull their ads from Breitbart and Rebel Media."

"efforts to demote anything non-PC, anti-Communist, and anti-Islamic terror from search results."

"Emmett says he personally witnessed efforts from leftists within Google to bias YouTube's algorithms to push anti-PC content off the platform's 'related videos' recommendations,"

<comment><USER9> Apparently, a company with a 644 Billion dollar market cap, co-founded by a man whose parents fled the USSR for political reasons, is secretly trying to promote Communism.

<comment><USER8> Nah, I just posted that here to encourage the discussion. I don't have much trouble believing that the article is derived from some sort of similar reality though.

Here's some more disturbing relatively credible content:

[http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/19/google-search-results- skew...](http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/19/google-search-results-skewed-to- favor-black-americans/)

[https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/14/16145064/google-daily- sto...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/14/16145064/google-daily-stormer-ban- neo-nazi-registrar-godaddy)

You can build a gun today, but you can't control who it's pointed at tomorrow.</comment></comment></comment>


US officials knew of Wuhan health crisis in November, a second report claims - <AUTHOR> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/coronavirus-wuhan-china-november-us-dia-covid-19-a9459021.html <comment><USER2> Officials likely get told about many potential crises, but only a small percentage of those pan out. Can we really hold officials accountable for when the crisis actually happens?

If we locked down society or accepted draconian measures at every single instance of a possible crisis, we would always be living in crisis because there are always potential crisis of some kind that could happen soon.

<comment><USER3> You seem to be talking about the possibility that they overreacted though. That's not really the point. The point is that they did _nothing_. They took _no steps_ to prevent the spread of the virus.

The first, lightest, basic-fucking-step was to start screening people by body temperature at airports. Anyone with an abnormal body temperature is taken into quarantine for a few days. They had _three months_ from November to set it up. (For reference, China _almost eradicated the virus_ in three months from December to Feburary. And South Korea managed to almost completely _halt_ the spread of the virus in that time). Let's look at how that went:

I couldn't find anything from December or November.

January: "Travelers at 3 U.S. airports to be screened for new, potentially deadly Chinese virus"

([https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/01/17/coronavirus...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/01/17/coronavirus- us-airports-screening/))

Febuary: "CDC _considering expansion_ of airport health screenings for novel coronavirus"

[https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/26/health/coronavirus- airpor...](https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/26/health/coronavirus-airport- screening-expansion-cdc/index.html)

March (15th): "The US administration has imposed a ban on non-Americans travelling from the 26 European countries in the Schengen free movement zone."

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us- canada-51895246](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51895246)

March (23rd): "Travelers shocked by barebones coronavirus screening at US airports"

[https://nypost.com/2020/03/23/travelers-shocked-by- barebones...](https://nypost.com/2020/03/23/travelers-shocked-by-barebones- coronavirus-screening-at-us-airports/)

The point is that the United States had three months of advance warning to do something. And they chose to sit on their hands and do nothing. And now 14,696 people have died, and almost 500,000 people are infected. This rate is rapidly rising. What's more, _we don 't even know if this data is accurate_, it is very likely a lower bound given how _difficult_ it is to obtain a test in the United States at the moment ([https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/12/us/coronavirus-testing- ch...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/12/us/coronavirus-testing- challenges.html) | [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us- canada-51860529](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51860529) | [https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/coronavirus- test...](https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-testing-hard- to-get-despite-roche-abbott-cepheid-20200401.html)). Again, they had _three months_ of _advance warning_ to set this testing up, within which South Korea had almost _nullified_ the spread of the virus.

<comment><USER4> An alternative take is that they did not believe that the screenings were going to have a meaningful impact on the spread to the US and were always a PR move.

Even in January there were case reports of an up to 14 day incubation period, cases without fever, and asymptomatic transmission.

<comment><USER5> Well the administration did a lot of things for optics/PR/the "markets" but none of those steps were taken to actually help or protect Americans.

That's really the gut punch for me personally. Trump could have secured his reelection 100% by taking this seriously but instead he was too focuses on the short-term to look even as far as November.

<comment><USER4> I'm honestly not sure how this relates to what I said. Are you agreeing? I'm not saying trump did a good job, just proposing that airport screenings may not have made a difference

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hmmm ... the director of the NCMI (part of the DIA) apparently refuted this:

 _" As a matter of practice the National Center for Medical Intelligence does not comment publicly on specific intelligence matters. However, in the interest of transparency during this current public health crisis, we can confirm that media reporting about the existence/release of a National Center for Medical Intelligence Coronavirus-related product/assessment in November of 2019 is not correct. No such NCMI product exists," Colonel Dr. R. Shane Day, director of the National Center for Medical Intelligence, said._

Quoted in the article and also here:

[https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/08/politics/intel-agencies- covid...](https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/08/politics/intel-agencies-covid- november/index.html) (a few paragraphs down)

</comment><comment><USER7> There's a big difference between "the things we did weren't enough" and "if we had done something, it probably wouldn't have worked anyway".

One is a measured opinion, the other is an excuse. Which are you willing to accept from your government?

Also, when the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee dumps up to $1.7M in stock right before a market crash, you have to question the timing.</comment>


Discover How To Use Google Buzz and Turn It Off completely - <AUTHOR> http://savedelete.com/discover-how-to-do-use-google-buzz-and-turn-it-off.html <comment><USER3> Nice walk-through screenshots for those who, like me, haven't yet bothered/dared to click the "okay" button on the "Welcome to Buzz" message.

<comment><AUTHOR> Lolz..I click the"okay" and discovered all this. Thanks for liking the post.

<comment><USER3> I liked it well enough to think "this is what Google should have put up instead of that bada-boom splash screen". Thanks for the timely write-up.

Problem with these things is not quite knowing what you're getting into - <USER2> witnessed by the yelps of surprise/outrage going around. Then having to spend time digging up obscure settings and tweaking lists. Then still not knowing if all the peepholes are plugged ...

<comment><AUTHOR> Ya even there are still many things which is really annoying about this big bash Google Buzz..Hope they can fix it asap. Thanks for the heads up.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


An Oxford comma changed this court case completely - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/15/health/oxford-comma-maine-court-case-trnd/index.html <comment><USER2> The 29-page decision shows that the "Oxford comma" is only part of the court's interpretation of the law, and I recommend reading the decision before commenting.

[http://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate- courts/ca1/16-1901...](http://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate- courts/ca1/16-1901/16-1901-2017-03-13.pdf?ts=1489437006)</comment>


WeWork parent pulls IPO following pushback: sources - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wework-ipo/wework-parent-expected-to-delay-ipo-wsj-idUSKBN1W12T6 <comment><USER2> As someone living in SF, I don't think anyone in SF or SV would ever consider WeWork to be a "Silicon Valley" company in the same way that Uber or Twitter or Slack is.

The company has 0 tech brand among employees (how many ex-FB or ex-Google engineers work there?) and outside of Benchmark's early round none of the VCs are SV-based.

Point is the media is making this out to be an indictment on some SV tech bubble but people in SV are looking at this from the outside like everyone else.

<comment><USER3> It's not "Silicon Valley", it's _Silicon Valley_. As in the show.

My wife just started a contract at a new WeWork office in London. The lobby features a giant but non-functional as skateboard ramp, and two DJ booths, both manned (at 9am on a Monday). The bathrooms feature the very latest in digital toilets, but they aren't flushing, and nobody can figure out how to reboot them.

At an aesthetic level, this couldn't be more _Silicon Valley_ if Mike Judge were in charge of the service design.

In this context, the media pile-on may be annoying -- but it's inevitable, and basically deserved.

<comment><USER4> My WeWork in Gurgaon, India has a biweekly bhangra dance class at 4pm on a weekday

After the third such class, I decided to get the hell out of my lease.

It's like their entire corporate culture is built around finding creative ways to not work. It's awful environment to build a startup in.

<comment><USER3> Snort!

I am imagining a bunch of microdosing firangi sitting in their gravity pods, asking each other what Indians do to be, like, all cool and stuff. "Build a successful business" is, like, way too square an answer, daddy-o. Anybody can be a dull old business man. Our customers want to be cooool. So what's cool and Indian?

Yoga?

Sure, man, but _everyone_ does yoga. They probably do Yoga in Kansas these days, so how's that gonna build our brand? Yoga goes without saying. We need something way cooler than that. What is it?

(Long awkward silence.)

Ah, I've got it! Bollywood dancing! Yeah, they eat that shit up over there. Let's do that.

<comment><USER5> This might be 90% accurate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> We Co isn't a tech company. Its a landlord subleasing commercial realestate as short term month to month leases with snazzy furniture. They happen to have a mobile app. Its functionality is so poor they removed the pay snack bar in my SF WeWork because no one could pay through the app.

CloudFlare... Now there's a proper tech company.

<comment><USER7> Ah, but it has/had a tech company valuation.

Why do you think valuations varied so wildly? You get the same thing with Tesla, it's valued more as a tech company than as car company.

<comment><USER8> The biggest difference between car companies and tech companies is return on invested capital.

According to that Tesla is somewhere inbetween a tech company and car company. Also it's the only car company that used software to substantially improve the performance of the car using software after selling it.

<comment><USER7> ROIC?

Have you got figures because I just googled for Telsa, Ford and Facebook at that doesn't seem to be the case, albeit with older figures.

Anyway at this stage Tesla are selling luxury cars to the converted, its unclear to me that they can keep doing that. Eventually they'll have to start selling to Joe Bloggs.

[https://www.gurufocus.com/term/ROC/NAS:FB/ROC-/Facebook](https://www.gurufocus.com/term/ROC/NAS:FB/ROC-/Facebook)

[https://www.gurufocus.com/term/ROC/F/ROC-/Ford-Motor- Co](https://www.gurufocus.com/term/ROC/F/ROC-/Ford-Motor-Co)

[https://www.gurufocus.com/term/ROC/TSLA/ROC- Percentage/Tesla...](https://www.gurufocus.com/term/ROC/TSLA/ROC- Percentage/Tesla%20Inc)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The Matt Levine saga on this for the past week or so has been fantastic. If you're vaguely interested in corporate / bank finance, I'd encourage subscribing to his newsletter. It's free.

<comment><USER10> > WeWork Co., is a clever financial engineering company that has managed to > tell an appealing fast-growing-tech-company story to equity investors while > also telling an appealing stable-real-estate-company story to lenders, but I > must say that I am stumped by this:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-06/people...](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-06/people- are-worried-about-we)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Semi related but Blue Apron will forever be my favorite IPO.

5 stock splits and 3 CEOs later, day one investors will receive roughly 2 pennies back for every dollar invested just 2 years ago.

Only people who won were those who dumped free shares on the market (insiders), and maybe consumers for getting subsidized food of questionable quality.

Once valued at 2 billion USD, a paltry 150 million will get the job done now.

<comment><USER12> Pinterest is next

[https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge...](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F0h3tm0f)

<comment><USER13> Google trends is probably not a good way to assess Pinterest.

Want to browse Pinterest? Open the app. Want to get Pinterest? Go to the App Store. Heard someone say 'pinterest' but don't know what it means? Search google.

Your link is only showing that last one.

<comment><USER14> Google Trends takes advantage of the Google knowledge graph for deeper understanding of entities and companies. This is showing "Pinterest the social network" not just "Pinterest the search term". You can toggle with the menu at the top.

<comment><USER13> >This is showing "Pinterest the social network" not just "Pinterest the search term"

I believe this is just a broader result set that includes searches for anything that Google deems to be related to 'Pinterest the social network'.

Google doesn't have access to internal Pinterest metrics.

<comment><USER15> Google also knows how many Android users search/download the app. I don't use pinterest, but if they use Google analytics or ads then Google also has a fair amount of data on usage.

Google is very much a panopticon, I doubt any other single entity has as much knowledge of the internet as a whole. Now whether this reflects in Google analytics I don't know, as I've never really used their analytics for anything serious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> WeWork is a real estate company and not a software company. They don't have any worthy propriety tech and their business model is collecting rent. How they were once valued at 47 billion just straight up doesn't make any sense.

<comment><USER17> I don't think big investors are that stupid. They don't think an office rental business is a tech business, that's just a really convenient story to tell. Because if it's NOT a tech company, you have to look at why it's worth so much and come to the conclusion that all the fundamentals point to. It's worth a huge premium because it's getting a monopoly. My suspicion is that WeWork thinks that they can use their scale to drive their landlords prices down the way Uber does to their drivers, and jack up the rent.

"We're going to really fuck anyone willing to do business with us" is not a compelling story for a company trying to grow, but it's great for investors. Also, I'm not just talking about the landlords and customers, you better believe the plan is for the lenders to get pennies back on the dollar too.

<comment><USER18> > It's worth a huge premium because it's getting a monopoly.

A monopoly on _real estate_?

Yeah no.

<comment><USER19> The commercial real estate market in just the US is valued at $16 TRILLION. It's absurd to even be discussing a monopoly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> What a wild ride. Maybe there is hope for the bullshit industrial complex around tech to finally start unwinding a little bit.

</comment><comment><USER21> > This target is tied to a $6 billion credit line We Company secured from > banks last month, that calls for an IPO to take place by the end of the year > and raise at least $3 billion, one of the sources said.

> Were the New York-based company to fail to meet this target by the end of > the year, it would need to secure alternative funding.

Does this mean, its now a ticking time bomb?

<comment><USER22> It definitely is.

When you read this and that Softbank has committed to buy 1/3 of the shares sold at IPO it does sound like it's going to pop sooner than later (that may include the vision fund if WeWork crashes)

<comment><USER19> I would not be surprised if Softbank's commitment ultimately changes to "we'll buy however many shares we need to buy to ensure the IPO raises at least $3B and the debt covenant is preserved".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> WeWork is a huge success...for its founders. Neumann reportedly sold over 700 million worth of shares ahead of the IPO.

For some reason every startup nowadays is the next Amazon or Facebook. Poised to become the market leader in their field of expertise. Most of the IPOs are losing big money yearly but the market is happy to support them with billions of dollars. Actions that would make Warren Buffet cringe but could make money if you're lucky.

This invites startups to take advantage of the situation. To me this is one of the dark sides of our society because the ones at the bottom of the pyramid losing their money are you and me saving for our pensions.

<comment><USER24> _WeWork is a huge success_

Indeed. For all the platitudes otherwise, the vast majority of startup founders do this primarily because they want to become rich. Judging a startup by any other metric is at the end of the day at least somewhat disingenuous.

If all you know about two startups is that in startup 1 the founder exited the company with $10 million in his bank account and in startup 2 the founder exited with $750 million in his bank account, which would judge the bigger success?

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Recruiters from WeWork reach out to people with a pitch that they are unicorn tech company. They lose me with that line.

<comment><USER26> Not sure if I'm just young, but my friend's over 200k total comp would have made me think twice about an offer. It's not the highest, but seems fairly competitive in sf

<comment><USER27> How much was the cash comp? I would value any equity at 0. Plus they would have to offer extra cash as a premium for volatility and a negative brand image.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> > The WeWork brand is strongly tied to Neumann, a freewheeling 40-year-old > Israeli-born entrepreneur who has said that We Company's mission is "to > elevate the world's consciousness".

"Elevate the world's consciousness" \--> Dont mean to be negative but what the hell does that even mean? Imagine your landlord told you that.

Been following this story closely and Adam Neumann is such a crook, from the outset he just wanted to take advantage of public shareholders. His intentions were to screw them. Don't forget that lot of the shareholders for big IPO's are pension and mutual funds and hard working middle class families indirectly or directly own a bulk of these. This is how they get screwed.

I am so glad the market called his bluff.

<comment> semi-extrinsic No-one knows what it means, but it's provocative. It gets the people going!

<comment><USER29> Nah, it's gross.

<comment><USER30> He's quoting Will Ferrell from a film.

<comment><USER29> Me too (well, John Heder)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Looks like the title changed? TFA now says:

WeWork parent says IPO still on despite setbacks

</comment><comment><USER32> Any wagers on the price of fancy, used office chairs in 6-12 months? :)

#dotbombveteran

<comment><USER33> Do they still make Aeron chairs ???.

<comment><USER34> Or wait for the conscious elevating "WeSit" tech unicorn that changes the way you sit

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> It's been incredible watching each part of this unfold exactly as Matt Levine called it each week prior.

<comment><USER35> Additionally, I think this is great to think about as far as the entire story of IPOing a big tech company in 2019.

You start with the story the bankers sell you. They all want to tell you you're going to be bigger than you ever thought possible, because, well... those fees are awfully nice.

"We're going to IPO you at 20% of $PREVIOUS_VALUATION"

The counter-argument was, well, "We don't think you're worth that much, you're probably worth only $20B."

The problem is here... well there's not really a financial position you can take here especially as the short price skyrockets. Maybe you get some smug satisfaction, but overall, everyone in the early stage of trying to win the IPO for their bank is going to tell you what you want to hear.

Now... things suddenly change, you need to shop it around. Well, maybe you don't get the number you want. Maybe you do? You edge it a little down. Yet, all the benefits you have as a private company (insert your It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia Pepe Silvia meme of Mack trying to connect the dots) you can't really keep entirely as you try to collect that public check.

Matt was spot on here, of course, they're going to try and take apart some of those political rights that usually people grumble about (see Snapchat IPO) and then somewhat get over as time goes on.

Yet even that didn't do the trick! So you slash the economic upside, and once again that's not enough.

Maybe you even set the price low enough that you can hype it and it will go up, but at some point, the market will give its verdict and in this case: WeWork didn't cut it.

In many ways, it's an interesting litmus test of the health of the tech industry. Yes, there's been a bull market for this last decade, but bubble... maybe not. Maybe, this is great example of Wall Street being serious about how much large private companies are worth? Either way, what a crazy saga nonetheless. I wonder if they'll be able to (somewhat paraphrasing Matt) turn the dial from growth to revenue and approach the market later? Time will tell I guess.

Maybe we'll get an Alex Gibney documentary out of it!

<comment><USER36> We is not a tech company.

<comment><USER37> I agree but are you saying that if it was a tech company, it would be worth the 48 billion? Also, is it THAT much different from AirBnB that is considered a tech company? What 'tech' does AirBnB offer that qualify it is a tech company?

<comment><USER38> AirBnB is asset free. We is long $47B of leases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> The headline has been changed to "WeWork parent says IPO still on despite setbacks".

<comment><USER40> It's crazy how quickly we have come from newspapers having to print revisions and retractions to fix minor mistakes to an organization like Reuters changing an article to say the complete opposite thing in minutes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> IPO is back on. Not surprising when you look at their burn rate vs cash on hand. Or the fact that they entered into a $6B line of credit last month that is contingent on them raising at least $3B in an IPO by end of year. Beyond Adam and Softbank wanting to cash out eventually, the company needs this funding to continue to operate.

<comment><USER41> Hasn't Adam already cashed out $700 million during a previous round?

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> sorry, all the talk about comedic _Silicon Valley_ (whether WeWork is 'tech' or not or whatever) and then I see this:

 _" My friend's entire company is locked out of their WeWork office because an umbrella fell, jamming the door. No one can figure it out. It's been like this for 2 days."_ \--[https://twitter.com/NeerajKA/status/1173997679363407872](https://twitter.com/NeerajKA/status/1173997679363407872)

Too good.

</comment><comment><USER43> RIP Softbank Vision Fund 2.0

<comment><USER10> Delaying IPO buys some time for Sofbank. IPO with low valuation forces huge write-down for SoftBank. Now they can still pretend.

I suspect that SoftBank & Saudi money will be the biggest casualty of current tech boom. They just throw money around.

<comment><USER44> In a world awash with negative interest rate investments, even loss-making enterprises are worthwhile. This may be the natural glide path at the end of growth: redistribution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Calling dibs on the bankruptcy/restructuring.

</comment><comment><USER46> I hope it's now painfully obvious why Silicon Valley is getting behind the Long-Term Stock Exchange: they need to be able to pass these duds onto the uneducated public.

</comment><comment><USER47> Is it true that WeWork is now the largest single lessee of commercial real estate in the US? Seems like a bad bankruptcy could have some broad ripple effects.

<comment><USER48> Well people are actually using the offices so prices will go down if they backrupt but they'll catch up. It would feel like an adjustment and not a bubble bursting.

<comment><USER47> It's anecdotal but I've been in half a dozen WeWork properties in the last 2 months and I've yet to see one more than 50% occupied. There were a couple buildings in Seattle that seemed almost empty.

<comment><USER49> Despite all their shortcomings (and I have ranted about them on here a lot in the past), the seem to have close to a 100% occupancy in Berlin. It does often look like they are less occupied though (partial empty offices) because the claim of "you can easily move to a bigger office" isn't true and companies rent offices that are bigger than they need them to be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> We should now question the valuation of the other companies that have recently gone public. I understand WeWork was unusually tumultuous, but many of these talking points equally apply to recent IPOs.

A couple quarterly filings have already begun to bring some of these companies closer to reality.

<comment><USER51> like which ones?

<comment><USER43> uber, lyft, to a lesser extent slack

<comment><USER52> Can you all be more specific about which "talking points" are similar? These companies had to submit financial statements ahead of their IPOs and as far as I know, WE has been a complete trainwreck in comparison to the others. Talking about "talking points" doesn't seem to address any knowledge of what exists in financial statements, it sounds way more abstract like we're trying to say that Uber, Slack, etc. all talk big about themselves but are actually not that great. Like that matters? In comparison to _a CEO who has used his position to allow for absurdly corrupt looking deals and nepotism_ , which _was not the case for Uber, Slack, etc._

Just saying, maybe you and the other person could be more specific about how WeWork is similar to Uber, Slack, etc. beyond "talking points" because financial statements are more substantial than how similar companies puff themselves up through PR and branding.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> It's a shame WeWork is run by such scummy characters, the concept itself has the potential to make people's commutes much more flexible and shorter.

When on-boarding a new employee, companies would be able to automatically provision them a desk/office at the closest WeWork to them. This allows companies to have access to a much bigger pool of talent, and allows employees to have access to a bigger pool of companies.

On top of that, the flexibility means commutes are much shorter, as co-working spaces can be efficiently distributed across a city and its suburbs. Even when an employee moves to a new company, they could theoretically stay at the same WeWork site, rather than have to deal with a new commute.

<comment><USER54> Why even provide office space to folks? Just let them work from home and you save a lot!

I always felt this was the fatal flaw in WeWork's model. Once telecommuter culture has been established, companies realize they can just make their employees pay for their office space and deduct it.

For most things where you benefit from "going in to the office", the benefit is reliant on having a set of people in the same place. If everyone is all over the country, what is the point of office space in the first place?

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Scott Galloway victory lap incoming 3... 2...

</comment><comment><USER56> This reminds me of the startups selling dog food that IPO'd during the first dot com bubble. At least collective sense seems to have prevailed this time around.

</comment><comment><USER57> Does anyone know what happens to the liqPref (and hence the subordinated equity shares of early employees) if they IPO below their $12bn liquidation pref?

<comment><USER58> Depends entirely on contractual details likely not broadly known. Those details have not been broadly reported or discussed. In general in a generic sense it's quite common for investors (those writing actual cheques into the business) to be made whole again and then some before options holders or others get to come to the table. First dibs on the rewards goes to those that took the most risk.

Reports out now are saying the likely market cap of the company is less than the cash raised by the company. Speaking generally that's typically a beyond ugly situation for non-investors hoping their stake/options is going to make them some $. Think about it... it wouldn't be right for some employee equity/options holder to get money while investors lose money.

Haven't seen much written about the details specific to We/WeWork, but given all the crazy governance issues identified to date with its corporate structure it wouldn't be surprising if such clauses are very complex.

<comment><USER57> Makes sense that at this point the cap table would be a bit of a mess.

Would be interesting to see something simple, like the total value of all the employee equity, according to different IPO prices/valuations, and then compare that to the changes in the CEO's wealth on the same axis.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Financial Twitter on fleek (h/t Financial Times front page)

[https://www.twitter.com/nickatfp/status/1171613239580516352](https://www.twitter.com/nickatfp/status/1171613239580516352)

</comment><comment><USER59> If We does IPO, I'm going to buy some IWG shares. The only way We can justify their sky high valuation is buying out the bigger competitor who is way undervalued by the markets.

</comment><comment><USER60> I started at Arm last week on an R&D project around eUICC HSMs

I don't know enough about how SoftBank manages it's children to know if I should be worried...

</comment><comment><USER61> Not necessarily related, but curious to know what hn community thinks about Airbnb and how it will do in a IPO

<comment><USER62> I'm not any kind of expert, but Airbnb has strong network effects, a clear business model, and is easily understood as a tech mediated disruption to hotels.

So, sounds like an easy sell. But it depends on the price.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> And next, the bankruptcy episode...

</comment><comment><USER64> What will i do with all that popcorn now?

</comment><comment><USER65> Do I need citizenship in the USA if I want to trade on this stock?

<comment><USER24> No, but if you want to invest prior to the IPO you have to get what's called Accredited Investor Status by the SEC.

Once the stock has gone IPO anybody can trade.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> proof we're not in a bubble?

<comment><USER67> To the extent that "I didn't literally jump off a bridge" is proof that I'm intelligent, sure.

<comment><USER68> It's a start!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Wepocalypse.....</comment>


Ruby on Rails vs. Node.js - <AUTHOR>

The question is which should new web developers take up learning, and why? Now, hold your horses - I know that comparing Ruby on Rails and NodeJS isn't completely a 1:1 comparison. Rails is a full web framework and NodeJS with ExpressJS is more comparable to the likes of Sinatra - that's not the point. The point is going forward which is the more progressive and powerful tool to use to develop user-friendly web applications?<p>Let's discuss... <comment><USER2> Meteor.js beats rails in terms of productivity. Also it's in most cases more performant (node vs ruby thing). It requires some re-learning of how to model your data (document store vs relational data), but in most cases it's worth it.

Also soft realtime is the default, shipping mobile/desktop apps aside with your webapp requires little to no code changes, and even offline working apps are doable with ease.

Rails was fine 10years ago and popularized many paradigms when it was important... Now the world moved on and requirements changed heavily. No bad rap for rails (it paid my bills for many years!) but it left the path of innovation and is now mainly on the maintenance road and trying to catch up and thats it IMHO.

<comment><USER3> Meteor.js is the future for personal projects. I do not see any jobs for Meteor.js in any popular job board like indeed.com.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think arguments can be made on either side pretty convincingly.

For me personally, the ecosystem matters most. So the choice comes down to Gems vs NPM. NPM tends to have what I need the vast majority of the time, and gets better every day; so I prefer Node.

Here's an interesting comparison of the ecosystems: [http://www.modulecounts.com/](http://www.modulecounts.com/)

<comment><USER5> There are lots of small, even one-line modules in NPM. So I don't believe the comparison.</comment></comment>


Amazon's Curious Case of the $2,630.52 Used Paperback - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/technology/amazon-used-paperback-book-pricing.html <comment><USER2> this method could be used to transfer a specially marked up book for encoding messages between spies.

When you see a specific book title for a specific high price, offer a specific alternate high price to buy and it will be sold to you and you get the secret coding book.

The selling spy and buying spy then dont have to know each other or have any other contact.</comment>


Ask HN: Need to Learn about Databases - <AUTHOR> So, here's the thing. I have a Physics degree, and I am now (well, whenever coronavirus let us get out again) finishing my masters degree in Automation and Control. I've had Data Structures courses, but, due to some changes in the curriculum, I couldnt attend any databases course. So, I would like to invest my free time due to the quarantine, to learn about databases. But, I don't know what should I study, so I'd be grateful, if you could point me in the right direction (technologies, courses etc)
Thanks in advance :)
And keep safe people <comment><USER2> I recommend you the "Manga Guide to Databases" :-) It's a very, very good introduction to relational databases and SQL.

[https://www.amazon.com/Manga-Guide-Databases- ebook/dp/B007XL...](https://www.amazon.com/Manga-Guide-Databases- ebook/dp/B007XLF39M/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=manga+guide+to+databases&qid=1585058438&sr=8-1)

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll give it a try, though I don't really like manga for entertainment, so I guess it will be a bit difficult to keep me focused for studying :p Thanks a lot

<comment><USER2> Yeah, I know... :-) I have to credit the PostgreSQL core developers, you know: people experts in DBMS developments %-) They talked about it on the mailing lists almost ten years ago and I was intrigued. Since then, I probably have bought about 20 of them to distribute among colleagues or co-developers. For non-programmers who learned and created business applications with MS Excel, MS Access or Google Sheets, it was a gentle approach to relational databases and SQL, and helped a lot to migrate those solutions to (real) DBMS or ERP.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Berkeley CS 186, Spring 2015. [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhMnuBfGeCDPtyC9kUf_h...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhMnuBfGeCDPtyC9kUf_hG_QwjYzZ0Am1)

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks, I'll start watching the videos :)</comment></comment>


ARM pointer authentication (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://lwn.net/Articles/718888/ <comment><USER3> This basically means that binaries compiled with `-msign-return-address` will be unable to run on older ARM processors, I guess?

With SSEx, AVX, VT-d and friends programs could do feature detection on the fly and e.g. switch to software implementations of the algorithms, but I don't see a way to rewrite all function prologues to remove the `AUT` instruction?

<comment><USER4> Mark Rutland pointed out in the comments that the `PAC` and `AUT` instructions GCC picks to do the authentication are treated as NOPs on older processors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> That's pretty cool, but it seems to me that mixing in the stack pointer just means adding more code to function epilogues & prologues, while not buying much in the way of security. But no doubt I'm missing something.

<comment><USER6> The stack pointer is mixed in to the signing to act as a discriminator - <USER2> means you can't simply reuse a previously signed return pointer, you have to also have the stack frame in the same position.

As far as addition of code, you may have just been looking at the software implementation which isn't as secure as it isn't implementing an actual cryptographic signature (using a key that isn't visible from within the process)</comment></comment>