Comments on: Maybe Google Should Buy a Movie Studio?

By: zohair

zohair — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:33:13 +0000

jgwghwo JNJ

By: awardtour

awardtour — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 06:04:51 +0000

Jesse beat me to it, but wouldn't AOLTW be a pretty strong case for this being a very bad idea?

Doesn't Google own 5% of AOL? I would hope that buys them (at least a little) leverage in getting access to the TW library. Seems like a better route to pursue before dropping a billion dollars on something like LGF.

By: Jesse Kopelman

Jesse Kopelman — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:33:17 +0000

Dave, when I say $15B for T-Mobile, I just mean T-Mobile USA. Just remember that DT paid at least $30B when they bought them and that was back when they had 10 million fewer customers . . . Again, why would Google want to run a retail network? Also, when I talk about MVNO I don’t mean a Google MVNO I mean Google as the network provider to other people’s MVNO. I think you don’t understand the way a wireless carrier operates well enough. The benefits to Google you are envisioning do not exist. If AOL couldn’t make a go with the network assets of TW (where there were huge synergies) Google T-Mobile wouldn’t have a chance.

By: dave

dave — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:59:43 +0000

just tmobile usa, sorry…they’d acquire about a very large commercial sales force that could be readily retrained to evangelize and sell enterprise solutions into the smb (of particular interest to girouard) and in turn, acquire an enormous consumer installed base, relationships with new hw partners (namely in mobility) and on top of it all, everything i described above – plus, of course, free lattes at the campus…think about it: fingers into commercial and consumer and wireless and mobility and an overnight distributed field sales force across the country coupled with thousands of consumer access hubs on top of it? i’ve been talking about this idea for 2 years now with friends, and only a few of them think that i’m insane…i’m certain that elgoog is going to look at a player like tmobile within 2 years, and while they could build it for under 15B, why bother? their OS only works as a collaborative dream tool if millions are collaborating at broadband speed from millions of possible nodes, and tmobile will put them there…it would take them way too long to brand a new mvno, and espn is proof that it’s not worth its weight as a standalone offering…

By: Jesse Kopelman

Jesse Kopelman — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:59:27 +0000

Dave, how is T-Mobile cheaper to buy? DT woudln’t let it go for less than $15B in cash. I’d think it would be more like $30B in GOOG stock. For those figures, Google could just build their own nationwide WiMax network. $5B would get you a reasonable ammount of spectrum and $10B would get you enough base-station for a coverage area equivalent to T-Mobile. Sure you wouldn’t get all the customers, but you also wouldn’t have all the legacy infrastructure to maintain. Anyway, would Google really want to be a retailer? I think they’d rather be a wholesaler to MVNO. There are plenty of very experienced RF engineers out there, so I wouldn’t go buying a wireless carrier for engineering talent . . .

By: Bob Aman

Bob Aman — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:57:01 +0000

I’m inclined to agree more with Dave. Google getting into the content production business is quite possibly going to scare off other content producers. While I agree that LGF would be a wonderful acquisition for Google’s users/customers, long-term, I think it would backfire. If it were realistic to buy out T-Mobile though, that could be a really interesting play. The other telecoms have already soured to Google somewhat anyhow, so it’s not like Google’s really got something to lose by suddenly having those particular competitors. Plus those particular competitors aren’t the sort who have all that much in the way of information that Google wants to “organize”, meanwhile better connectivity to Google’s primary money-maker can only be good for them, to say nothing of diversifying their revenue sources a bit.

By: AbbydonKrafts

AbbydonKrafts — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:38:42 +0000

Very well said, Robert. I am interested in seeing something like this play out. The music industry finally cracked and allowed songs to be downloaded and burned to CD for $1, which is in line with the retail price for a CD ($1×10 tracks = $10 [no CD production overhead]). However, the movie industry keeps wanting to rip people a new one. When it tops $10 for electronic download, it’s not worth it. I’d much rather pay $15 for the physical DVD with all the extras, as well as the ability to take it wherever I want. This is especially the case when you add on the cost of burning and packaging yourself. Frankly, I wouldn’t pay $5 for a movie download that cannot be burned. It’s cheaper to rent it either via a store or online service such as Netflix or Blockbuster.com. If Google gets into the electronic movie distribution arena, maybe we’ll see some real progress.

By: dave

dave — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:47:05 +0000

no way, elgoog should be buying tmobile right now to own hard and digital transmission along with thousands of hotspots ripe for wimax enablement in every affluent demographic in america (and globally) because really, when it comes down to it, those services and all of that crap that elgoog offers that requires broadband is targeted to ‘above national average’ for median household income, and that’s where harbucks is…everywhere elgoog wants to be…advertisers would love it of course, every local opening page in every affluent town in america on free wifi is elgoog coupled with upscale shopping and local ads…and tmobile is a cheaper buy with a lot more cash on hand and some engineering talent to boot, lgf has crap for elgoog, people want to watch themselves now, not stars…or have you not been following the world this past month ;)

By: Mark Evans

Mark Evans — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:08:56 +0000

interesting thesis, particularly given video is so hot right now.

By: telecom rep

telecom rep — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:34:55 +0000

It’s inevitable because it’s happening elsewhere throughout the telecom industry. Traditional landline phone companies’ portfolios include VoIP technologies, cell phones, broadband, and have married up to satellite providers (read: video offerings). Cable companies have expanded to broadband, landline phone offerings, VoIP, and are experimenting with all sorts of video options.

So for Google’s arc of adding video and voice technologies, to add more video options like feature films is just a logical milestone on their current trajectory. Think of the rumors of their free nationwide wifi.

It’s all consolidation. http://www.telecommer.com

By: Darren

Darren — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:06:27 +0000

My answer to this: I really hope not. Google could screw up a one car funeral. Why give them more responsibility than they already have?

By: Ish

Ish — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:50:40 +0000

I hope if they spend $1 billion on Lion’s Gate they can at least design a decent UI for serving the movies.

By: viola39

viola39 — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:23:59 +0000

Bravo~ Robert!

By: tf

tf — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:27:34 +0000

"(It seems to be working for Apple, so why not Google!)"

Are you kidding? Too many potential answers to that one. You might as well ask:

Apple gets cool design, so why not Microsoft?