For some reason, Hulu has had a lot of trouble with their ownership. Every few months it seems like one or more owners get antsy and want out. Most recently, an
early investor got out, leaving our three big guys behind: News Corp. (FOX), Disney (ABC) and Comcast (NBC).
In the past,
everyone wanted out. Several bids were made for the company, but the major investors were unable to come to an agreement on terms. Eventually the sale was ended, with no change taking place. The main companies at the heart of the disagreement were News Corp. and Disney; both have very different ideas of how the brand should be run, and how licensing should work. Fox has even gone so far as to wait two weeks before licensing new content to Hulu.
With that information at hand, it is not surprising at all to hear that News Corp. and Disney are in talks to buy each other out. Both companies either want out entirely or want the other one out, willing to purchase the opponent's share. Again, the issue at hand has to do entirely with how to run the business, primarily around the monetization aspect.
Of course, this is all speculation. Adding to the rumor's credibility is the fact that an early investor, and current CEO, Jason Kilar, is set to step down at the end of the month. During an executive power vacuum would be the ideal time to make a big change like this. Kilar sold his shares of the company back in October for $40 million at the same time
Providence Equity Partners sold back $200 million worth of stock.
The idea that multiple stockholders would bail together, including the CEO, certainly suggests management struggles. Hopefully, if this happens, it will go for the better. So far, it would appear that the FOX stake in the company would lead to a change in the way the company works. Either way, my guess is NBC won't be hugely excited about going from a 33% equal partnership to minority stake.
We have written about the spectacular failure that Groupon has been since before their IPO. Between June and August of 2011, their traffic
dropped 50%; not exactly the press you need before you announce your IPO in October. Their attempt to get a good valuation and some investment money didn't quite pan out. Add to that unsuccessful product launches and you end up with a company in trouble.
Their disaster has been so legendary that all recent IPOs have been scored in relation to theirs: Facebook
was compared to determine which was worse, and LinkedIn proved an IPO could be successful. But what of the leaders of companies who lose their shirts in the stock market? Often times they are taken out and fired. Groupon has decided to follow in BlackBerry's footsteps, letting Andrew Mason, their CEO, go.
Andrew didn't respond the way most CEOs do when terminated - he released a public statement, and it is a unique one. He knew what was coming and does not blame the company. We have the statement after the break.
We all remember the news from last year: Apple had become the most over-valued stock on the market. With a stock price of $705.07, it was clear that Apple had the market covering its back, but for how long? Ever since the
resignation of Steve Jobs as CEO before his death and the decision to appoint Tim Cook to the role, the belief was it would happen sooner than later.
With its market share shifting to Samsung, issues with
handset quality, camera color and map accuracy issues, it has been clearer that the valley was coming. Over the past few weeks, we have seen it come to fruition. From its peak to this week's new low of $430.21, the company's stock has dropped a whopping 40% in just 2 quarters.
For those who are not intimately familiar with the way stock process work, they show investor confidence in a company and its products or services. A 40% drop in price indicates a massive shift away from confidence in Apple's management to maintain the relevance of their product line. I tend to agree with the market's analysis. Steve Jobs was the reason the company had the success it had; without him, people seem to not care.
There is a saying within the industry: every time Tim Cook speaks, Apple's stock drops. That is a lot different from the days where any time Jobs spoke, the stock would go through the roof. Product announcements are no longer spectacles that are talked about for week afterwards, product launches are no longer covered live by the press; those spots seem to have been taken over by Samsung and Microsoft. The Galaxy Note 8 has had a bigger reception in the press than the iPad Mini did; The Surface RT and Surface Pro have had more coverage than the recent version of the iPad.
Unless Apple can do something amazing and announce it in a way that isn't boring, Samsung, Google and Microsoft will have the opportunity to end the run of Apple. If I were a stockholder, which I am not, I would be demanding Tim Cook's resignation - like
Groupon - tomorrow with the hopes that someone with the passion of Steve Jobs could take the reigns and bring back the excitement of the company.
Spotify, the service I've been following
since the beginning, has a couple of key meetings lined up for the next couple of weeks. This could partially be due to their next round of funding coming up, but they also have a bigger picture in mind. Spotify will be talking with the major record labels to renew the licensing agreements in place. Even bigger, they will be looking to ask those record labels for some pretty big price cuts, and will also see if they will be on board to bring free streaming to mobile devices.
Spotify is already speaking with Warner Music on these topics, but will be dealing with Sony and Universal within the next month, according to sources close to the situation. These talks are crucial for the music-streaming service, as the music's big three will either make or break Spotify moving forward. If everything goes well, Spotify could be propelled past several competitors and could really go up against Apple in terms of market share. Currently, Spotify has 5 million paid and 20 million total users across the globe.
As far as the financials, Spotify pays 70% of its revenue towards music-licensing fees and another 20% goes into acquiring new customers. The remaining 10% is left for other costs, like upgrading the platform. This leaves almost nothing for Spotify to really profit from after everything is said and done, which is why the price breaks from the record labels would be very useful. If Spotify can prove increased market share and exposure, the labels might play ball on terms on quantity instead of price.
Another key for the negotiations is going to be the previously mentioned shift to bring the free tier to mobile for more than just a 30-day trial. We've already shown that Spotify users
buy more music than those who don't use Spotify, so perhaps there is really something to be said about the power behind the platform. I think that Spotify also has some negotiating power to push both of their objectives with their ability to convert almost 20% of its customers into paid subscribers. We'll have to see if the labels agree, and I will be sure to report back to you either way. Now if only the company would allow you to purchase music as well through their platform.
Electronic Arts is slowly transitioning to a more digital and social development studio, as we suspected. This week, EA has laid off a bunch of employees in their Los Angeles and Montreal studios as the company makes the shift to mobile gaming and next-gen. Frank Gibeau, president of EA Labels, said in this blog post that it is because EA has made strong investments and moves towards mobile and new console technology. He also added that thousands of current EA employees, instead of being let go, were reassigned work that was in line with their new visions. He said,
Console transitions are a complex and challenging experience. I've helped navigate several and agree with an old saying we have at EA: Transition is our friend.
No word yet on how many employees were terminated or what positions they were holding. We wish the best for the laid off employees' future endeavors.
In other EA news, does anyone remember when Zynga launched
The Ville and made it look exactly like Sims Social? EA sued the company, claiming copyright infringements, employee poaching and just sheer laziness (off the record). It appears that after months of squabbling, EA has dropped the legal suit against Zynga and all claims and counterclaims regarding the case have been dismissed.
We have not received comment from Zynga nor EA about the suit, but instead discovered this information via a filing with the US District Court for the Northern District of California. This suit drop comes at a very interesting time for Zynga, as the company has recently undergone a drastic cut of properties that were bleeding money, largely in part due to the work from COO David Ko at the helm. Earlier this month, Zynga even
posted a small profit because of the cuts. Perhaps this might be a small turnaround point for them, as EA looks to restructure as well.
Remember Aereo, the rebel company that chose to go the route of streaming over-the-air broadcasts to out-of-market customers for a monthly rate? Yes, we appreciate the gusto and courage it takes to go
head-to-head against all of the broadcast companies at once. So when we heard that Aereo was in another lawsuit, we asked, "who is it now?" Needless to say we were surprised to find out that it actually wasn't a broadcast company trying to sue them this week.
Instead, FilmOn, a company who does the exact same thing as Aereo, is suing the company for copyright infringement. FilmOn says that Aereo allegedly violated FilmOn trademarks and has taken on a style that is too similar to that of FilmOn, who claims rights to "Aero," which is the name of their service. You may know of a device called the WinTV-Aero-m, which is made by Hauppauge Computer Works, but the difference is that device has permission to use the "Aero" phrase from FilmOn. The lawsuit says that Aereo was "seeking to unfairly capitalize on the success of WinTV-Aero-m and the name 'Aero,' Defendant Aereo devised a scheme to start a competing business."
You can hit the source link below to check out the full complaint. For now, it just seems like this is simply a bitter, back-and-forth type of lawsuit. In the end, it may be found that both of these companies are doing illegal things in the eyes of the courts, so why go at each other? Doesn't all of this seem a bit strange? If two companies, who do the same thing, and are being sued by the same broadcast companies, would work together instead of sue each other, perhaps we'd have a stronger rebel force to go against the Empire.*
*"Empire" and "Rebel" are trademarks or registered trademarks of Lucas Arts/Disney in the United States and other countries. Lucas Arts/Disney and other parties may also have trademark rights in other terms used herein.