By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Timcast: Youtube Gets Woke Goes Broke Loses 70 BILLION DOLLARS!!!

 

What do you think?

They deserved it 28 60.87%
 
It's about time 3 6.52%
 
I blame T-Series 5 10.87%
 
Google Stadia is doomed 8 17.39%
 
I don't care I still use old TV 2 4.35%
 
Total:46
DeusXmachina said:
Mr Puggsly said:

I can't imagine you would get that unless you have a history of looking for that type of content.

I only watch videogame related videos and get ben shapiro & jordan peterson video recommendations all the time.

So they do not recommend alt-right videos to you.



Around the Network
zero129 said:
SpokenTruth said:

Licensed games or leased games are already a thing.  Stadia isn't going to usher in an economic model that doesn't already exist. 

And no, the "Get work go broke" phrase isn't based on actual events but rather a hope that it happens. Remind me of that one character in the movie Clueless trying to make "fetch" an accepted expression of speech when nobody was really into it.  Nothing behind it, she just wanted it to be a thing.

Further, IPs that have embraced diversity and are "woke" have actually expanded their markets and grown.  I mean if we are looking at this as an example, Alphabet gained $6.6 billion more dollars and grew.

So let me get this right. If you go buy a PS4 or XB1 etc game. You dont own it? so if sony or ms etc stop doing gaming they can just come around to your house and take back your games?. If so its news to me. (And i dont just mean the license). If i buy a game i dont give a shit about the license i own that game no one is going to come around and take it off me after their service shuts down. with Stardia that license means something..

I only heard of the "Get Woke go Broke" thing in this thread so im just giving my opinion on maybe why its a thing. Can you name many franchise's such as games or movies etc that has tried to change their audience successfully?, I mean Star Wars is in pretty bad shape after trying to change their audience, Walking Dead has lost viewers etc. You just name Alphabet but how many more is there? like you said many IP's have successfully done this so can you name a few more? also how many IP's has lost money/Customers/Viewers after trying to change their audience compared to how many has successfully done it?.

Yes, you legally don't own the game, just the disc with the game on it. What you own is a license to use said game.

Like SpokenTruth said, you can't resell your digital games, and that's because you only own an usage license for the game. That's also the reasoning behind Microsoft trying to stop used games when they announced XBO - it's just a small change in the usage license, but with huge repercussions.



Ka-pi96 said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Yes it is loosing money - but only for the shareholders, and only those why invested into Alphabet when the stock was above the current point! Alphabet didn't lose one cent with this. Hence why it is false, and deliberately so from the one who made that Video to push his agenda.

And yes, you are defending the source and the video, I just don't think that you realize that.

*losing

But technically not even then. They only lose money if they actually sell their stocks. For example if you were to buy a house for $250k and then a year later it drops to $150k, have you lost $100k? Nope. You still have the house and the exact same amount of money as you had before. If you sell the house then you'd have lost $100k, but if you don't then you haven't actually lost any money, yet.

true - just meant that they are on the wrong end of the break-even line, and probably some did sell at a loss, irrationally panicky as they are.



Ka-pi96 said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Yes it is loosing money - but only for the shareholders, and only those why invested into Alphabet when the stock was above the current point! Alphabet didn't lose one cent with this. Hence why it is false, and deliberately so from the one who made that Video to push his agenda.

And yes, you are defending the source and the video, I just don't think that you realize that.

*losing

But technically not even then. They only lose money if they actually sell their stocks. For example if you were to buy a house for $250k and then a year later it drops to $150k, have you lost $100k? Nope. You still have the house and the exact same amount of money as you had before. If you sell the house then you'd have lost $100k, but if you don't then you haven't actually lost any money, yet.

If you invest (many things) in an election campaign, and lose, do we say they lost? Based on some people's reasoning here, they didn't lose, because they also gained many things (like experience) and can continue to campaign and officially run again in 4 years. That's not the point though. The point is they wanted something starting now and what potentially came with that over the next 4 years or more. If you continue to lose elections due to poor campaigns or strong competition, your odds of receiving more votes and winning down the road won't be as likely.

The reason to purchase stocks is to make money. That's the goal. You also want to be able to sell at any time and make as much of a profit as possible. If the stock price falls a lot, or is constantly fluctuating, for whatever reason, that's not good for the company or it's stockholders. It typically means there's 'problems' within the company, or strong market factors, like competition, which usually leads to less buyers with a falling stock price, due to future uncertainty.

Politicians do lose elections, and stocks do lose value, since time most certainly matters and has a price. People don't have unlimited time and resources.



SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

If you invest (many things) in an election campaign, and lose, do we say they lost? Based on some people's reasoning here, they didn't lose, because they also gained many things (like experience) and can continue to campaign and officially run again in 4 years. That's not the point though. The point is they wanted something starting now and what potentially came with that over the next 4 years or more. If you continue to lose elections due to poor campaigns or strong competition, your odds of receiving more votes and winning down the road won't be as likely.

The reason to purchase stocks is to make money. That's the goal. You also want to be able to sell at any time and make as much of a profit as possible. If the stock price falls a lot, or is constantly fluctuating, for whatever reason, that's not good for the company or it's stockholders. It typically means there's 'problems' within the company, or strong market factors, like competition, which usually leads to less buyers with a falling stock price, due to future uncertainty.

Politicians do lose elections, and stocks do lose value, since time most certainly matters and has a price. People don't have unlimited time and resources.

What have I told you guys about bad analogies?

1. This whole thing was about YouTube (Alphabet) losing money.  Which it certainly did not and in fact gained billions in profit.

2. The lose of valuation in stock is only subject to those that sold the stock at a now lower price than what they bout it for.

If you bought $5,000 in Alphabet stock 2 weeks ago, you didn't lost any money this week...unless you sold it.  The fluctuation of stocks prices are relevant only at 2 points during the life of ownership...they day you buy and the day you sell.  Everything in between is largely irrelevant.

You can't logically believe that the only things that matter in life are birth and death and everything in between is largely irrelevant.



Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

You can't logically believe that the only things that matter in life are birth and death and everything in between is largely irrelevant.

I repeat. What have I told you guys about bad analogies?

That when I'm required to read between the lines at times, due to making a strong point, that it's not a strong point because reasons?



SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

That when I'm required to read between the lines at times, due to making a strong point, that it's not a strong point because reasons?

Read between the lines? You just equated buying and selling stocks with birth and death.  Do I really need to go into details about how ridiculous that is?

No, I was making a correlation between a running a political campaign and purchasing stocks. You said nothing in between buying and selling really matters much, and why should that be any different than life? Your living life in between those moments in time of purchase and sale, and are paying attention to those stocks so you know when to sell in case they start to tank. Who buys then forgets and just magically knows when to sell? People don't have unlimited money or time and can't just allow the stock to tank and lose big. Google isn't too big to fail, and even if they were bailed out, the stock holders can't rely on the Gov.



Tim is a smart cookie, one of the few real seemingly real investigative journalists we have left.. I'll have to give this a watch. I feel similar to him in that I'm a liberal of a more classical pursuasion (anti-war, anti-censorship, even into the Occupy Wallstreet thing) but has become disaffected by modern day progressivism, and sort of retreated to libertarianism.



 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident - all men and women created by the, go-you know.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden

zero129 said:
SpokenTruth said:

You want Stadia to fail because you can't pirate the games?

Did you forget the part before it? you know the part that said "Every game i buy". Oh wait clearly you didn't since that's in you bolded part too so why come back with such a weak response?. I like to own what i buy sorry if you see that as pirating and me not giving in to some license that says i cant. thats why i want stardia to fail, i want to be able to mod my games and do what i want with them as i paid for them they are mine. I feel sorry for you if you want to trow money at something you will never own.

Like Netflix,e books,theater,cinema,zoo's,circus ?

The experience is worth the money,ownership is not needed and not missed for a lot of folks so no need to feel sorry for them.



Gotta love sensationalist Youtube videos posted by idiots who cream their pants over every bit of even slightly adverse news about multi-billion dollar companies they hate.

"Youtube gets woke, goes broke." Google is still worth at least 100 times what the Trump Organization at its peak was worth.