David Gratton

• 

  • David Gratton  You make good points on the slippery slope of cultural content, but I would also add software, too. People steal software through via P2P, how can we get compensated for that? And I said this to Jim directly at SxSW. The biggest issue I have with this scheme is that it taxes the wrong people. Jim is trying to recover money from the declining sale of CDs, but he is not targeting the people who buy CDs, he's targeting everyone. When he talks about music being purchased now or in the 1990s he always talks about "the average" (or mean) and consumers only being charged about 3-5 dollars per month. However, looking at the average is a red-herring. The fact is MOST people (Mode not Mean) spend 0 (ZERO aka NOTHING) on music in any given month or YEAR. In fact the Median amount spent on music is also ZERO. The vast majority of the North American population does not spend money directly on music. Jim's plan in effect forces the majority of the population to subsidize a small group of people like me who do buy music.
  • • 1 month ago
    •   Is a music “tax” paid to ISPs the answer?
    •   Mathew's comments
  •   mathewi  You are right software, David -- I will add that to the list. And that is an excellent point about the approach Jim is taking: it penalizes people who not only don't download music, but likely don't buy it in any form whatsoever -- and they have to subsidize the activities of a small group. That's just blatantly unfair. On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Disqus
  • • 1 point
    • 1 reply

  

  • David Gratton  I think you are right, Mathew. Most mergers of this sort actually do not increase shareholder wealth. They are often a sign that management is floundering to define direction. However, I don't believe that is the case with MSFT. They have desperately been trying to build community and Web services (yes for ad revenue, but also for extending their platform). I think it is safe to say that they have not done a very good job at it. So, buying Yahoo! makes a ton of sense in my opinion. It is not a diversion or a company desperately looking to 'jump on board" (hrm .. AOL/TIME). Just as Google dropped it's video platform to buy YouTube, MSFT dropping MSN to buy Yahoo makes sense.
  • • 3 months ago
    •   I think MSFT has already won
    •   Mathew's comments
  • • 1 point
    • 0 replies

  

  • David Gratton  Alan, Funny enough that's the same strategy of the VC industry. Which on a whole year after year provide returns to their investors of ... well..... - 5% That MINUS five percent. (So there is no confusion.)
  • • 3 months ago
    •   Jeff Zucker: All of our TV pilots suck
    •   Mathew's comments
  • • 1 point
    • 0 replies

  

  • David Gratton  Mathew, Mathew, Mathew. If you were a TV executive, you would not have such hair-brained ideas as developing webisodes and embracing new content delivery and business models. You would be smoking your cigars, enjoying some "flowers and fruit", and talking to your lawyers (if you weren't one already) about suing those punk downloaders who don't respect or value the hard work you are doing at your studio. Plus, you'd have to pay writers for that, and lord knows that's not going to be good for your bottom line.
  • • 3 months ago
    •   Jeff Zucker: All of our TV pilots suck
    •   Mathew's comments
  •   mathewi  I have to say, I do like a little "flowers and fruit" now and then :-)
  • • 1 point
    • 1 reply

  

  • David Gratton  I'm not sold on the actual long term value of facebook as the sole platform for building one's business. Building facebooks apps is predicated on the assumption that the vast majority of your intended users are members of Facebook. Clearly that is not the case today. However, there presently no other platform with the features or user base that developers can test their social apps. If you can build a successful facebook application (that doesn't rely on enhancing facebooks present communication features - Superwall, etc.) then I think you can certainly extend it outside of facebook.
  • • 3 months ago
    •   Facebook: The startup sandbox
    •   Mathew's comments
  •   mathewi  I think you're right, David -- and the news about the API including widgets makes that even easier now, it seems.
  • • 1 point
    • 1 reply

  

  • David Gratton  Maybe your OPML app should still be rebranded in that case to something more consumer oriented? As the previous comment pointed out you may be using Mr. Jobs digital hub idea, but it sounds like - unlike Apple - this may be a way for other small developers to engage in the space at low cost. I'm looking forward to seeing it.
  • • 4 months ago
    •   About to ship a new app (Scripting News)
    •   Scripting News
  • • 1 point
    • 0 replies

  

  • David Gratton  The whole Scoble/Facebook thing was a bit nauseating to be honest. However, I wonder what Techmeme/Digg/et al. would look like if it deleted all references to the top 50 blogs. Would anything change? Is there a dialog going on that is being drowned out by these blogs? I kind of doubt it, but I would be curious to see it.
  • • 4 months ago
    •   We have met the enemy: He is us
    •   Mathew's comments
  • • 1 point
    • 0 replies

  

  • David Gratton  Thanks for kudos and posts, Mathew. I think Canadian companies can play a big part in the OPEN MEDIA WEB, or as I like to refer to it as Play The Web technologies.
  • • 4 months ago
    •   Can Ian Rogers help save music?
    •   Mathew's comments
  • • 1 point
    • 0 replies

  

  • David Gratton  Actually I disagree with you, Dave (and Fred). The assumption is based on rising asset prices based on future monetization POTENTIAL of a large and expensive user base. This is fine while VCs are flush with cash, but it will only take one company like Facebook failing to meet some future expectation to make the house of cards come crashing down. So while asset prices climb based on user base, your assumption is true. But eventually someone has to "Show Me The Money." This is no different than silly valuations in the 90s based on BURN rates. Or dare I say the recent housing boom and crash in the USA.
  • • 4 months ago
    •   Calacanis: You have to be a “player”
    •   Mathew's comments
  • • 1 point
    • 0 replies

  

  • David Gratton  Yeah I think Thom is off point there. The physical artifact does have value to certain people - no question. You just need to look at the prices of "collector vinyl", but the reality of the present CD sales collapse must inform everyone in this industry that the physical artifact is near irrelevant to the future of the recorded music industry.
  • • 4 months ago
    •   Radiohead: People still want an “object”
    •   Mathew's comments
  •   Matt  I've had it with CDs. And DVDs for that matter. What's the point? This also speaks to what kind of people we are. Some people just like accumulating "stuff" and I'm guilty of that on occasion. Generally, I have no mental or physical space for clutter in my life any more.
  •   mathewi  I couldn't agree more, David.
  • • 1 point
    • 2 replies