Amazon, not Google, to buy Twitch.tv for 970 million dollars.
Apparently the rumors were false.
Thoughts on this /v/
>google offer to buy twitch
>amazon offer to buy twitch
>twitch leaks rumour about google buy up
>twitch users/casters think google is a shit idea
>twitch go with amazon offer
nothing to discuss
it's the same people working at twitch
the system isn't changing
Your talent, your passion, your dedication to gaming, your memes, your brilliance – these have made Twitch what it is today. Every day, we strive to live up to the standard set by you, the community. We want to create the very best place to share your gaming and life online, and that mission continues to guide us.
Way too early to tell, but it's better than Google. I am keeping Hitbox TV bookmarked just in case, but if some conglomerate other than Google is buying Twitch there is still hope. I'd prefer it if Twitch stayed independent instead of selling out like a bunch of pussies, but at least it's not Google.
>amazon hasn't done anything evil yet
What about the working conditions in their warehouses? I don't know if I'd call them "evil" but damnit they're trying.
I agree they're not as bad as Google, but that's not saying much either.
cool more benefits Amazon Prime
amazon knows more about video with it prime video
>Amazon begins getting more into movie streaming
>works out deals with companies where you can pay to stream a movie on your twitch account
>people watch movie with you and ad revenue goes to movie company
>video games takes another hit
i am ready
>implying I give a shit about the filthy illegal immigrants working in those warehouses
They get decent pay anyway. As long as I get stable servers and no bullshit I'll be happy.
>Should have said "hasn't done anything evil to their users"
They've been doing some pretty shady shit with book/e-book sales the last few years (price fixing, blacklisting, etc.).
That is a case of putting user rights above writers', you retard. It's technically bad for writers, but it's not doing anything illegal, just supply and demand in action.
It's like how blockbusters died, book stores are just pointless now.
It's not evil either, holy shit. The ONLY people butthurt about amazon's book selling policies are
>book stores (who the fuck cares)
>big time writers (small time writers don't care because amazon makes them more successful than regular publishers)
That's it. Not evil to their users in any case.
>google makes an offer
>twitch says "probably, but let us check what the community would think"
>add the policies that google would force on them
>backfires, 20% of the userbase leave for hitbox.tv
>twitch says no to google
>twitch says yes to the next offer
>google offers a shitton of money for twitch
>twitch gets excited and accepts the deal
>government says google can't buy twitch
>would nearly put a monopoly on streaming services
>"well fine...we'll let amazon give us money instead"
Not a /biz/raelite but it seems to me that these large acquisitions for a single site are just ridiculous. I get buying infrastructure and brand name and all that, but a single service doesn't seem to warrant such a large bid. Seems like it would be better to go with a smaller but more functional competitor and then integrate them with your own infrastructure for a fraction of the cost. Not like you are going to guarantee domination of the market forever even if you buy out the one in the lead.
Then again what do I know, I'm just a retard on /v/.
>government says google can't buy twitch
Those rulings are made after trials and would be public, dude.
>Earlier this year Amazon got into a similar spat with Time Warner . That dispute reportedly involved marketing issues as well as pricing and didn’t drag out for too long.
It's a bluff and it's Disney and Time Warner's fault anyway. I'm glad Amazon is making them their bitch
now seriously, I'll stop pretending to be a shill and admit you have a point
Aren't google stocks technically more valuable than cash at this rate?
>All the idiots blaming Google for muting videos containing copyrighted music in VODS
>Now that the news comes out that it's Amazon not Google buying Twitch people realize it was 100% Twitch that changed their VOD system to mute things.
>caring about twitch
Actually you get no benefits if you work part time, which was part of the reason Amazon got so much shit. They would just hire a bunch of people and pay them part time so they wouldn't have to give them benefits.
Potential plus sides of Amazon buying Twitch?
>Targeted ads with referrals (Click here to buy the same Razer Mouse that your favorite streamer uses!)
>Instead of muting videos, have a popup that asks if the user wants to purchase a digital copy from Amazon
>it makes no sense to let people get powerful enough to control an entire nation without democracy having a part in it
that kinda contradicts history of human civilization
>You will never live in a technocracy
>that kinda contradicts history of human civilization
you mean the history of all those empires that fell?
the only people against democracy are the ones who erroneously think they'd be in power
>the only people against democracy are the ones who erroneously think they'd be in power
Or people that realize that democracy is a colossal failure both in theory and in practice, and that it's little more than decaf communism.
>Le evil rich people all want libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism!
>That's why they nearly all pour massive amounts of funding into propping up the highly statist Democrats and Republicans!
>communism says private property is robbery
>democracy says private property is a right
Jesus christ, I know nothing about anything that isn't vidya, but this guy doesn't know what either communism or democracy is.
Didn't say that at all, I just said the guy in your picture is biased as hell
and they're funding those because democracy is the system we have now
they would fund your system if it existed
>>democracy says private property is a right
Democracy doesn't "say" anything, including if private property is allowed in any capacity.
Hell, it's foundations rest on the idea that property rights don't exist in any meaningful capacity, as the collective has a right to negate them by virtue of getting 51% of people to agree.
because 51% would agree to give up their belongings? I doubt you'll ever get 2% to ever do that unless, you know, they're communists.
listen, i actually live in a communist country which I'm trying to escape because no sooner than 3 weeks from now, i'll only be allowed to buy exactly what the government wants me to buy, not that there's much to choose from, 1 brand of whatever product, or quite simply no product at all, and use my fingerprint as my ID.
You can think anything about how bad democracy is, but until you come and live in a shithole that this is, you'll never have the whole picture.
I'd be lucky if I go down to the store and find 2% milk right now
>>because 51% would agree to give up their belongings?
no, that's the point, 51% force the other 49% to give up their belongings by using "democracy"
>You can think anything about how bad democracy is, but until you come and live in a shithole that this is, you'll never have the whole picture.
Just because your communist shithole sucks does not make Democracy inherently good.
>because 51% would agree to give up their belongings?
No, but you can certainly get them to try and steal the other 49%'s belongings.
Although democracy in action is obviously more complex than this (due to the existence of the intermediary of politicians and bureaucrats), the effect is largely the same. People tend to overwhelmingly vote to steal other people's money for their own usage. This is seen with government unions spending huge amounts of money to further increase their massive pension programs, welfare recipients trying to increase welfare, farmers trying to increase ag subsidies, banks trying to get/maintain central banking (i.e. the Federal Reserve), defense contractors trying to get more contracts, old people voting for more social security payments, etc.
This is just looking at the purely financial side of this, there's also the rather massive violations of property rights that occur when everyone is constantly trying to ban all of there competition (so that they get more money) via minimum wage laws and other price controls, regulatory agencies, occupational licensing, etc.
>improvement over 1% having complete control over 99%
I have no idea what system you're describing.
I'm guessing monarchy, however kings generally had the incentive to maintain their capital value in a country, which in turn meant that the most effective way to maintain this was allowing a significant dose of private property rights within their domain.
Meanwhile, in democracy, you have absolutely no good incentives for a healthy economy as the incentives are to steal as much as possible from everyone else and hope they don't do the same to you.
>Amazon wants to sell things for a lower cost
>Publishers disagree saying Amazon just wants to corner the market and get more profit
Based Amazon. For once a company is screwing the people making the products while helping the people buying the products.
Basic societal needs, I imagine he's aiming at. Unless, like, you're imagining out-and-out anarchy or some kind of crazy libertarian that will inevitably pave the way for the biggest guy with the most guns to march about declaring themselves King of Shit Mountain.
But seriously, WHAT kind of government are you saying would work best, given the US's history and general population?
>But seriously, WHAT kind of government are you saying would work best, given the US's history and general population?
In terms of government, monarchy is the least terrible option.
Although the preferable condition is anarcho-capitalism.
What is a nation-state?
The reason that Canada and the United States exist as two separate entities, to use his example, and aren't considered to be in a state of "anarchy" ( I'm not sure what he is meaning by this, so I'll just assume he is referring to the general definition of a state in anarchy) is a variety of reasons.
For one, there is no infrastructure or legal document in place referring to Canada and the United States as a cohesive political entity. Any separation of the two countries doesn't infringe upon the claims of either country, which are both desperately upheld as agreements of the citizens of both sides that they are in sovereign states. Toronto is a city in Canada, in the province of Ontario, because those who initially created the legal documents establishing boundaries decided that would be the most proper way to go about this, and the collective of people in the city, by virtue of neither resisting this law and by agreeing to both federal and provincial taxes, agree to have things how they are.
tl;dr the social contract ad infinitum
>Democracy is a soft variant of communism
So he never read Politics by Aristotle ? A full fleged faggot I assume.
>Le evil rich people all want libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism!
That would be the case actually, unless you are a fedora faggot like the picture you poster.
> pour massive amounts of funding into propping up the highly statist
HHAHAHAHAHAHAH, they "destroy" the competency using it's "natural" enemy the state;
People, Americans in particular should learn a simple lesson, that the well being of society it's more important than having 5+ Billion dollars at the end of the year.