History shows fans want consolidation; you see it across the web every place. The big players are people like Google, Amazon, eBay, Facebook.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Consolidation isn't new, though... it was a major factor in our rush to form the Gathering and place a stake in the ground to ensure that there is a solid path for developers who are willing to stay independent and build their own companies on their own terms.
Back in the late 1990s, venture capitalists got very excited about the Internet. A whole lot of money was poured into some companies that failed rather spectacularly, and a lot of people lost a lot of money.
Consolidation means less equipment, less networks, and less jobs.
When I started half.com, our three biggest competitors were Borders, Tower Records and Blockbuster Video.
Most large media firms make outsized investments to acquire and market a small number of titles with strong hit potential, and bank on their sales to make up for middling performance in the rest of their catalogs.
I think every acquisition is unique and different. The best strategy is to listen to the founders and follow their lead.
One of the things that may get lost among all the hubbub when a company is 'going public' is that the business can now be owned, in part, by its greatest fans.
But if you look at WorldCom, which is the biggest failure to date, they grew dramatically, they were buying companies that were bigger than they were and they were doing it off inflated stock.
There's tonnes of room for more people in the tech market, and there are lots of content gaps that have still not yet been tapped into.
Facebook, Google, Apple, Yahoo - there's a common theme. None of these companies ever sold. By staying independent, they were able to build a great company.