TWiT: Digg Acquisition?

[alexisthebest]

Rupert Murdoch offered 100 Million for Digg?

[kowgod]

Why can't a person with a good idea just start and grow a business anymore? Why does the media constantly, and unfairly, jam acquisition down the throats of entrepreneurs all the time? Why does acquisition have to be the mark of success? Can't I just own a business and grow through investment?!

I feel sorry for Kevin and Jay and all their employees, not to mention all the other smart people with good ideas out there at any given moment.

Sigh.

[phatlip12]

Why can't a person with a good idea just start and grow a business anymore? Why does the media constantly, and unfairly, jam acquisition down the throats of entrepreneurs all the time? Why does acquisition have to be the mark of success? Can't I just own a business and grow through investment?!

I feel sorry for Kevin and Jay and all their employees, not to mention all the other smart people with good ideas out there at any given moment.

Sigh.

It sure must suck to have a great idea and be offered 100 million

[rockie]

Id figure out a way to bank on the media's part, but no actual aquisition occur, that possible?
I agree though, the media has too big a rumor mill going on, stupid pricks...

[casework]

Why can't a person with a good idea just start and grow a business anymore? Why does the media constantly, and unfairly, jam acquisition down the throats of entrepreneurs all the time? Why does acquisition have to be the mark of success? Can't I just own a business and grow through investment?!

I feel sorry for Kevin and Jay and all their employees, not to mention all the other smart people with good ideas out there at any given moment.

Sigh.

The "mass" media are a dying business. Older forms of media are panicking to keep their audience, and they don't know how. So what do they do? Buy every outlet they can.

[noonebutme]

Digg and Traditional Media arent competing. Digg doesnt create content, Traditional Media does. What Digg does, is links people to the Traditional Media content. Cant have Digg without Traditional Media, but Traditional Media's not going anywhere without Digg either.

[casework]

Digg and Traditional Media arent competing. Digg doesnt create content, Traditional Media does. What Digg does, is links people to the Traditional Media content. Cant have Digg without Traditional Media, but Traditional Media's not going anywhere without Digg either.

They're competing in the sense that modern forms are where people go to get the content. Mass media may create the content, but fewer and fewer people are coming to them to get the product. Ex: Newspaper subscriptions are on decline, but people are reading all the same stories online or watching them on TV. What would a newspaper business do to react to that? Make their own website for their news stories, or even easier, buy an already developed source to distribute the news or display the content.

[elfqrin]

did that person buy digg or not?

[kowgod]

did that person buy digg or not?

Rupert Murdoch owns Fox. No, he did not buy digg. Digg has not yet been acquired.

[ariastar]

An offer of an acquisition is seen as a business finally being successful because it means that the business is desirable enough to receive a high offer. The business has more "real" value. Something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

[alexisthebest]

Leo La Porte was talking about this in TWiT. I wanted to bring this up.

[rockie]

i offer a million dalla cash!, and 575 millon dolla google stock! and a free pizza, and a 24 pack of beer!

[ariastar]

i offer a million dalla cash!, and 575 millon dolla google stock! and a free pizza, and a 24 pack of beer!

The beer seals it.

[rockie]

The beer seals it.

Thats why I offered lol, they have beer, they are happy.

[ariastar]

Thats why I offered lol, they have beer, they are happy.

Yup. What kind are you offering?

[klitzy]

I dont care who owns Digg I just want to see it go public....

Now discuss my change of subject!

[eminemdrdre00]

http://www.digg.com/tech_news/Rupert_Murdoch_offers_over_100_Million_for_Digg_co m
In the latest episode of TWiT @ the 1:16:22 mark, Leo talks about how Murdoch offered well over 100 million dollars for Digg.com, but unfortunately Kevin Rose could not take the deal because the investors wanted more.

[kowgod]

http://www.digg.com/tech_news/Rupert_Murdoch_offers_over_100_Million_for_Digg_co m
In the latest episode of TWiT @ the 1:16:22 mark, Leo talks about how Murdoch offered well over 100 million dollars for Digg.com, but unfortunately Kevin Rose could not take the deal because the investors wanted more.

Eminem, we now join you with a discussion already in progress :)

[eminemdrdre00]

lol sorry about that, Im just shocked it only has 4 diggs!

[rowlodge]

just curious.,ohhhh never mind..".twit"

you moved the post and totally confused me.

how much did they wanted for digg, a zillion dollars? (this is incomprehensible)

[psbp516]

Why can't a person with a good idea just start and grow a business anymore? Why does the media constantly, and unfairly, jam acquisition down the throats of entrepreneurs all the time? Why does acquisition have to be the mark of success? Can't I just own a business and grow through investment?!

I feel sorry for Kevin and Jay and all their employees, not to mention all the other smart people with good ideas out there at any given moment.

Sigh.

Are you kidding?

Anyway, I'm sure kevin in jay would have loved to take the deal. Sadly the investors are dumpshits and thought that 100 million wasn't enough. I really hope that digg can get another big deal like this, hopefully bigger.

Well, it would sure change diggnation knowing that K. Rose is ungodly rich. :-P

[phool]

Why can't a person with a good idea just start and grow a business anymore? Why does the media constantly, and unfairly, jam acquisition down the throats of entrepreneurs all the time? Why does acquisition have to be the mark of success? Can't I just own a business and grow through investment?!

I feel sorry for Kevin and Jay and all their employees, not to mention all the other smart people with good ideas out there at any given moment.

Sigh.

WHAT???

This is the foundation of business, to make money and a quality product, Digg has a quality product, now it is time for the money before they miss there window or opportunity.
How many businesses you know make a 100mil + in profit there first couple years? lol, i dont know many that make that there first 7 years!

I would be happy for them (and jealous) if they sold for over a 100million, and And as far as feeling bad for there employees, come on, they are gonna either walk with a nice chunk of change, or most likely be kept on to continue running it and a nice chunk of change! Then on top of that be able to say they were a part of it!

Digg is not a long term investment and they all know that, new and better ideas are coming out everyday and eventually Digg with fall to the back burner! Strike while the iron is hot!

My 2cents!

[phatlip12]

Wouldn't it be crazy if he sold Digg and then got a cease and desist from Digg for having the digg name in the diggnation URL?

[wyrmwood]

Just a hunch, but I get a tingly little gut instinct that it was Jay that turned down Murdoch as opposed to the investors - Jay's there for a reason... If MySpace had Jay when murdoch bought it, it would've gone for 10 figures or not at all. Besides, don't the founders own the majority share? I've got another teeny little hunch that the articles of incorporation give them the power to say "Yes" whenever they'd like to. Then again, I'm directly contradicting leo laporte, which I think is a first...

Not that I pay attention - digg's that site with the news stuff on it, right?

[noonebutme]

They're competing in the sense that modern forms are where people go to get the content. Mass media may create the content, but fewer and fewer people are coming to them to get the product. Ex: Newspaper subscriptions are on decline, but people are reading all the same stories online or watching them on TV. What would a newspaper business do to react to that? Make their own website for their news stories, or even easier, buy an already developed source to distribute the news or display the content.
If Digg links to NY Times, people still have to go to NY Times to get the full story. cnn.com for example, it'sone of the most visited sites on the internet - and its been like that for years.

[kowgod]

WHAT???

This is the foundation of business, to make money and a quality product, Digg has a quality product, now it is time for the money before they miss there window or opportunity.
How many businesses you know make a 100mil + in profit there first couple years? lol, i dont know many that make that there first 7 years!


For what it's worth, my lamentation was more academic, than aimed specifically at the acquisition rumors swirling around digg.

I just feel there is an unnatural pressure on companies, particularly tech companies these days, to become acquired. In the grand scheme of things, I'd like to hope that entrepreneurs are more interested in their own ideas and watching them grow -- naturally -- than in formulating the best business plan possible to set themselves up for acquisition.

Don't get me wrong, I know there are some people out there whose sole intention is to build a "hot" company and become the target of a buyout, usually for personal monetary gain. But, I don't think this is as common as you would believe.

I think the average entrepreneur or businessman would rather see their ideas and dreams come to fruition on their own, and would rather treat acquisition or IPO as just a possible exit, but not necessarily as a mark of success.

[casework]

If Digg links to NY Times, people still have to go to NY Times to get the full story. cnn.com for example, it'sone of the most visited sites on the internet - and its been like that for years.

You're missing the point. The New York Times is a newspaper. You stating that these websites are some of the most visited only supports what I'm saying. Is Digg.com competing with CNN.com? Well, yes. In the sense that, if you go to Digg, you can see ALL the news and customize it to your liking, whether it is from CNN, NY Times, ESPN, or Joesrandomsite.com. The "technology" of CNN.com is of the past. I can only see their news stories? I can't interact with other people in response to the news? Psh, welcome to the 21st century. Digg isn't creating the content, but they are innovating the way in which you are presented with it.

[rockie]

Yup. What kind are you offering?

Choice is theirs, did i mention everyone gets a 24 pack?
















Wait, lets up that to 1.65 billion bucks cash, 5 billion google stock, and everyone gets 36 packs. :D

[alexisthebest]

I don't get it. the investors wanted more? what does that mean. Sorry I don't get business that well...:)

[rockie]

the investors mwanted more, because they see the value of the company worth more then the 100 million or whatever was offered. like say I owned IKEA, and Best Buy wanted to buy me out for 10 billion dollars. I could let it go for the 10 billion, or i can say screw you, I want 20 billion. and let the company mature longer for a larger aquisition price.

Hopefully tha sums it up for you. essentially, its bargaining for a better price on the seller's behalf. The investors are the people like the angel investors and the like. they are the people who put their money on the table hopeing the company they fund will be a success, and usually make back at least 3 times what they put on the table.

[noonebutme]

I can't interact with other people in response to the news? Psh, welcome to the 21st century. Digg isn't creating the content, but they are innovating the way in which you are presented with it.
A 'comments' feature isnt new.

I see the point your making. Digg is great, i'll not deny that. It changed the way media works. I'll not deny that either. But saying that it creates content isnt really correct. that's all im sayin :)

[casework]

But saying that it creates content isnt really correct. that's all im sayin :)

Hmm... maybe you should reread the last sentence in my previous comment.

[tokenuser]

In the sense that, if you go to Digg, you can see ALL the news and customize it to your liking, whether it is from CNN, NY Times, ESPN, or Joesrandomsite.com. The "technology" of CNN.com is of the past. I can only see their news stories? I can't interact with other people in response to the news? Psh, welcome to the 21st century. Digg isn't creating the content, but they are innovating the way in which you are presented with it.If you go to CNN or NY Times, you will already see that they are a news aggregation site. Most of the stories you see on their sites are not written by staff journalists, but come off the news wires - Associated Press, Reuters, etc. As such, they were doing what Digg does long before Digg doing what Digg does. How many times are stories reported as dupes on Digg, when in fact it is the same story (coming from Reuters for instance) linked from a different source??

What Digg added was the ability for ANYONE to editorialise a news story once it is linked - and to be honest, most of the comments are not worth the pain you need to go through to get to the gems.

Also, beause Digg has no editors, but relies on the popular vote, you have suddenly got legitimate news sources swamped by "news" sites that are often incorrect or out and out wrong (TheRegister for instance), or people submitting news stories that are out of date or out of context.

The thing about news web sites run by people like CNN is that they report what is new ... not what is recycled.

Digg is a great idea, but the hive mentality is what will stop it from becoming a legitimate replacement for traditional media.

[alexisthebest]

Hopefully tha sums it up for you. essentially, its bargaining for a better price on the seller's behalf. The investors are the people like the angel investors and the like. they are the people who put their money on the table hopeing the company they fund will be a success, and usually make back at least 3 times what they put on the table.

Hey Thanks Man. I get it.

[casework]

If you go to CNN or NY Times, you will already see that they are a news aggregation site. Most of the stories you see on their sites are not written by staff journalists, but come off the news wires - Associated Press, Reuters, etc. As such, they were doing what Digg does long before Digg doing what Digg does. How many times are stories reported as dupes on Digg, when in fact it is the same story (coming from Reuters for instance) linked from a different source??

What Digg added was the ability for ANYONE to editorialise a news story once it is linked - and to be honest, most of the comments are not worth the pain you need to go through to get to the gems.

Also, beause Digg has no editors, but relies on the popular vote, you have suddenly got legitimate news sources swamped by "news" sites that are often incorrect or out and out wrong (TheRegister for instance), or people submitting news stories that are out of date or out of context.

The thing about news web sites run by people like CNN is that they report what is new ... not what is recycled.

Digg is a great idea, but the hive mentality is what will stop it from becoming a legitimate replacement for traditional media.
I realize that, and I'm not trying to say Digg is perfect either. But my point is that Digg.com is 1)a new way of collecting, reading, and sharing the news and 2)challenging traditional media in some of the same ways that the internet has challenged something like newspapers. Newspaper readership and subscriptions have plummeted in recent years, while TV viewing went up. Now, TV viewing is going down and internet readership is going up. Digg.com isn't a new form of media, but they are challenging the way that it is presented to you. It has a long ways to go, but it is most definitely pushing the idea of news and media being made available to YOU on YOUR schedule and preferences, not some pre-made statistic made by an advertising company based on some demographics -- similar to the idea of podcasting.

[nefarious]

Well, it would sure change diggnation knowing that K. Rose is ungodly rich. :-P

Wouldn't it be crazy if he sold Digg and then got a cease and desist from Digg for having the digg name in the diggnation URL?

I think you guys are crazy... Diggnation is based on Digg, without Digg there is no Diggnation. Personally I could care less if Digg died/was bought (same thing) but you don't seem to realize that the show lives off Digg.

Sure, they might make a new show but don't assume anything, with 100 million bucks or more in revision3's pockets I doubt it.

[kowgod]

Wow.

Thanks to Mr. Kevin Rose, I am reading this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/24/business/24venture.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) right now, and it hints at exactly what I was referring to, but couldn't quite put into words. The desire to turn your back on your investors and just grow a business in a sensible, sustainable sort of way!

So, I'm not alone...............

[rowlodge]

i can remember a year ago when this all started, now $100 million was offered for it. i wonder if they would keep alex and kevin as part of the show? or bump them up to superstardom on tv?

i wonder what there plans are next? is the show what made it a success? or just digg? are they two different things? will he have time to do this anymore?

[klitzy]

i can remember a year ago when this all started, now $100 million was offered for it. i wonder if they would keep alex and kevin as part of the show? or bump them up to superstardom on tv?
i wonder what there plans are next? is the show what made it a success? or just digg? are they two different things? will he have time to do this anymore?

I am guessing everyone there would remain the developers/etc and Digg would now just be a part of whoever bought them...Example...Google/Youtube

Therefore...Yes Alex and Kevin would most likely continue with Diggnation

[noonebutme]

I realize that, and I'm not trying to say Digg is perfect either. But my point is that Digg.com is 1)a new way of collecting, reading, and sharing the news and 2)challenging traditional media in some of the same ways that the internet has challenged something like newspapers. Newspaper readership and subscriptions have plummeted in recent years, while TV viewing went up. Now, TV viewing is going down and internet readership is going up. Digg.com isn't a new form of media, but they are challenging the way that it is presented to you. It has a long ways to go, but it is most definitely pushing the idea of news and media being made available to YOU on YOUR schedule and preferences, not some pre-made statistic made by an advertising company based on some demographics -- similar to the idea of podcasting.
Putting all the content in one area and commenting it isnt a new idea :P The main challenge Digg poses is that it's got a large userbase. If Digg had a small userbase, people would say "Oh well, good idea but not practical."

As far as i knew, people could go to cnn.com whenever they wanted - nothing ever stopped them from going there or viewing video clips that were posted.

[casework]

As far as i knew, people could go to cnn.com whenever they wanted - nothing ever stopped them from going there or viewing video clips that were posted.

But going to CNN.com doesn't also show you the hot news stories from ESPN, The New York Times, a funny clip on YouTube, hot new deals on Amazon.com, some random blog, and news from IGN. Digg does. Anything that saves me the time from going to 8 or 9 different websites and is practical, well built, and organized to my liking is something I'm going to be interested in, not bookmarking those 9 different sites and checking them separately.

[kowgod]

But going to CNN.com doesn't also show you the hot news stories from ESPN, The New York Times, a funny clip on YouTube, hot new deals on Amazon.com, some random blog, and news from IGN. Digg does. Anything that saves me the time from going to 8 or 9 different websites and is practical, well built, and organized to my liking is something I'm going to be interested in, not bookmarking those 9 different sites and checking them separately.

Yes, but at the same time, I also don't go to digg when I am specifically interested with what's going on in the world TODAY. For example, if I want to know the current news out of Iraq, I go to CNN or Salon or what have you. Or if I want to know the current news in Chicago, I go to the Chicago Tribune.

Digg, as of now, doesn't provide me with a good way to get very specific AND very current news.

Now. Digg could change this in the future by not just breaking news out by category, but by ALSO breaking certain topics of news out by region, all the way down to the municipal level. For instance, Digg would be smart to take the World News category and further break it down by city. Maybe have me enter a zip code, and then give me the option of browsing and digging news just from Chicago news sources, or from a pool of stories determined to be pertaining to my city. Whether or not they will do this in the future is yet to be seen, but it would behoove them to do so.

Digg fills certain news requirements I have. I can rely on Digg to get a fairly accurate snapshot of what's hot in the tech and science world, and a general overview of certain other things. But, it doesn't really tell me what the news is in the traditional newspaper/6 o'clock evening news sort of way. And that desire won't go away anytime soon, if ever. People are always going to want to know what's going on in their community, and what the fat cats in city hall are up to. Digg can either choose not to take on that side of things... but someone will.

But, I just figure I'll give them time. It's only logical...