
Amazon’s Twitch Acquisition Is Official - lalwanivikas
http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/25/amazon-will-officially-acquire-twitch/
======
fidotron
Amazon really aren't on the radar round here nearly as much as they should be.
As some in this thread have pointed out their strategy is to spend absolutely
all income on slightly out there R&D, which in the case of things like their
web services wildly over return.

Just because they aren't based in the valley and make Apple look positively
liberal when it comes to secrecy and working practices doesn't mean they
should be ignored. Quite honestly I think they're the single most terrifying
company in the US today, an idea Bezos would take as a compliment.

The big picture is they are gunning to become the universal middle men for
when people actually spend money on the net. Google only have the ad side of
things together, but never really cracked getting end users to open their
wallets, yet Amazon are in the position of starting in front of users, and
slowly moving themselves into being the background glue between everything
else, facilitating transactions between everyone while taking their cut and
enforcing their rules. Terrifying, and brilliant.

~~~
iLoch
I wish they'd try harder with their payments business - they could be in a
position to compete with Stripe or Paypal but instead force users to pay with
their Amazon accounts. That doesn't make sense as a business strategy to me.

~~~
bellerocky
It's interesting you didn't mention Square, I think a sign of how much Square
has fallen. Two years ago payment and Square were often mentioned in the same
breath around here.

~~~
djur
Is Square not doing well? I've actually been seeing it a lot more recently --
lots of food carts and street vendors do the iPad-and-cardreader setup, and
I've seen a number of the POS systems in coffee shops and the like. I've also
noticed cab drivers using it.

I'm not seeing people use it for splitting bills and the like as much, but I
got the impression Square was making a conscious shift away from that market
and toward small brick-and-mortar (or truck-and-van?) businesses.

~~~
bellerocky
> Is Square not doing well?

Square reached too high a valuation off of low value business with merchants.
They have burned through staggering amounts of cash, canceled high profiled
products, and purchased payment-unrelated startups and made other changes. The
high valuation they've had in funding rounds makes them an unattractive
purchase because the business they have isn't worth what it would cost. To get
new money they'd have to do something like foursquare did to raise money,
which dilutes everyone's current equity to very little.

They probably can turn it into some kind of business but the growth has
stalled, the equity employees have is at risk and they've all but lost the
sparkle that excites the press when they talk about the company. They could
gain momentum back, it's not impossible, and they have really, really good
engineers and designers so that's a plus.

~~~
nostrademons
I don't believe this. Looking up recent "Square should panic" articles [1][2],
it seems they have about $350M cash on $100M/year losses, so roughly 3.5 years
of runway left.

The key point about Square's business is that they're in a new market. Their
primary users are small businesses that would not otherwise be able to accept
credit cards. I just bought a bottle of vodka directly from a distillery using
Square: they had no cash register, no front office, you walk up to the door
and the guys who run it will sell you a bottle on an iPad. Last Christmas, I
bought our Christmas tree directly from a family-owned tree farm in the Santa
Cruz mountains using Square. I paid for Maker Faire with Square.

If you follow Steve Blank's Lean Startup thought process, new markets take an
average of 7 years to reach profitability. It's not just a matter of
convincing customers to switch; you have to wait for people to enter the new
lines of business that you have made possible. That's finally starting to
happen for Square: I see people on HN down on it, but I talk to their actual
customers, the ones who pay money for it, and they are all very happy with it.

[1] [http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2014/04/21/why-
squ...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2014/04/21/why-square-needs-
to-sell-itself-and-do-it-quickly/)

[2] [http://fortune.com/2014/05/14/squares-status-its-
complicated...](http://fortune.com/2014/05/14/squares-status-its-complicated/)

~~~
bellerocky
> If you follow Steve Blank's Lean Startup thought process

I know an engineer who works at Square, they are not a lean startup, they have
all the various excesses that people love to hate which is expensive catering,
free shit, expensive furnishings. Square is not lean, and when you're losing
$100,000,000 a year, I don't care if you're an ancient business like Ford or
IBM, that's not good, and you wont have 7 years to reach profitability
profitability, you got about half that, if you don't hire anymore. If Square
stops hiring, that's also not good. They're going to have to let people go,
like their recruiting operation, which is world class.

~~~
joshuacc
> they are not a lean startup

"Lean" in this context doesn't mean "cheap."
[http://steveblank.com/2009/11/02/lean-startups-
aren%E2%80%99...](http://steveblank.com/2009/11/02/lean-startups-
aren%E2%80%99t-cheap-startups/)

The key point from the article: "If you confuse Lean with Cheap when you do
find a repeatable and scalable sales model, you will starve your company for
resources needed to scale."

~~~
hawkice
I'm pretty familiar with the lean methodology and I'm a bit confused how you
could use it to scale up to 100MM/year losses. If they had a repeatable and
scalable business model, surely they should either (1) be making money or (2)
have that 100MM/year make them tremendous money fairly quickly (as they scaled
up so soon, clearly the got the evidence of profit very quickly, which should
mean a one or two year turnaround on investment, tops, given their timeline?).
Clearly this isn't happening, as far as I can tell, because they're still
losing money.

Your point about lean and cheap is fair but a bit confusing in context.

~~~
nostrademons
It's really easy to scale up to large losses: hire more people. Which is what
Square's been doing in spades. Amazon did this as well, they went public in
1997 on huge losses and didn't break even until 2003, and even now the company
is basically run at break-even with all revenues reinvested into the company.

The reason this works is because once you have that repeatable and scalable
business model, you can be fairly sure that hiring a person (plus all the
other operational costs) at $X will bring in >$X in new business. So you spend
money for growth; the expenses are booked this year, the revenue doesn't
happen until next year when contracts are inked, product improvements are
launched, more people hear about Square, etc. The number to pay attention to
is gross margins (the amount of money they make off each transaction); the 2nd
article I linked lists that at 34%, which is comparable to Amazon's 30% and
Apple's 39%. As long as that is positive and high enough to cover fixed
operational costs, Square can instantly get to profitability by laying off
people (or, with current revenue growth, simply by slowing down hiring).

The risk with this strategy is that the market turns out to be smaller than
expected, and your product appeals only to a small number of early adopters.
Growth then slows down markedly right as expenses ramp up, and there's no way
to jump-start growth again. I think this is what's happened with Quora. Square
seems different, though: the customers I've talked to are decidedly non-
technical, and yet they love the product.

------
dang
We changed the url from [http://online.wsj.com/articles/amazon-to-buy-video-
site-twit...](http://online.wsj.com/articles/amazon-to-buy-video-site-twitch-
for-more-than-1-billion-1408988885) because everyone hates the paywall.

In general, we want the best article out there on a given topic, where "not
being behind a paywall" adds points toward "best".

~~~
namityadav
Thank you!

------
staunch
Twitch is not going to be another YouTube success story. There just aren't
enough great uses for live streaming yet and video game streaming is very far
from being mainstream. Twitch obviously can't believe it's very close to
reaching NFL-like status either or it wouldn't sell for a mere billion and
change.

Amazon or Google will piss off or drive away the Twitch user base. The users
will all move to Hitbox.tv or any number of new sites that will pop up. It's
easy to do live streaming, it's just expensive. This acquisition will bring
funding and Yahoo will buy the next popular live streaming site.

~~~
r00fus
Even if live-streaming video games (or other digital real-time content like
screenshares) was a hot market, Amazon doesn't have as good a record as Google
in integrating it's acquisitions.

Look at Audible - they still have their own crufty website (which uses the
same credentials as your Amazon site, sure) and discovery and reviews are less
usable there than on Amazon.com.

Also see Goodreads, DPR and IMDB - all places where things have essentially
gone on "as before".

~~~
jonknee
What good is "integrating" acquisitions? Users don't care about your org
chart.

Amazon could clone Twitch fairly easily (bandwidth is the limiting factor and
Amazon happens to have gobs of it), but they still bought the Twitch brand. It
would be a ridiculous waste to throw that in the trash.

------
christopherslee
I thought it has previously been confirmed a few months ago that Google was
acquiring Twitch. Did that fall through or was the confirmation later
retracted?

~~~
cdr
Months of rumors, which no doubt corresponded to ongoing negotiations, and
then about a month ago a single VentureBeat reporter claimed a final deal was
"confirmed" by anonymous sources. A lot of people were skeptical of a single
unsourced claim, and seemingly rightly so.

[http://venturebeat.com/2014/07/24/googles-1b-purchase-of-
twi...](http://venturebeat.com/2014/07/24/googles-1b-purchase-of-twitch-
confirmed-joins-youtube-for-new-video-empire/)

The reporter doesn't sound very contrite:
[http://venturebeat.com/2014/08/25/amazon-could-steal-
twitch-...](http://venturebeat.com/2014/08/25/amazon-could-steal-twitch-
acquisition-from-google/)

~~~
mcintyre1994
What do they even think confirmed means? "Confirmed: Amazon could", "Amazon
may", yep.. sounds really confirmed at that point.

~~~
derefr
"Before, we had only off-the-record reports from possibly-official sources
that something might be happening. Now, we have off-the-record reports from
definitively official sources that something might be happening. But we can't,
y'know, prove that."

------
imjk
I think this makes sense for Amazon for two reasons: 1) One of the barriers to
entry of live-streaming sites is the expensive hosting costs. With AWS
infrastructure, Amazon could potentially have another competitive advantage
over other live-streaming sites. They may even provide a better service
through higher resolution streaming as they wouldn't be as constrained with
bandwidth costs.

2) As Amazon enters the online advertising space to compete with Google
Adwords and Adsense, they'll want to own web properties with high impressions
for their display ads. User based video creation is great for that but comes
with risk for copyright violations. Twitch solves both these issues as it'll
give display ads high impressions without much concern about copyright
violations as these will mostly be legit user-originated content.

~~~
drawkbox
It is also good for the market to have two larger game channels (youtube and
twitch, yes there are Everyplay, hitbox and there will be more now this deal
happened).

Amazon is really hands-off with acquisitions for the most part such as Zappos
and Audible. They primarily add to the offerings by cheaper fulfillment or
server/bandwidth/cpu costs and more. I think they will treat twitch better
than if it was just integrated into youtube.

Also, it shows a dedication to game developers and supporting marketing of
games on their platforms and others. Amazon buying them is actually better for
Twitch and the gaming/let's play type new marketing channels.

~~~
SynchrotronZ
A streamer also mentioned that recently Twitch send out an enquiry to partners
about what kind of affiliation programs they would be interested in. My bet
would be that Amazons angle is going to be integration of their storefront and
other services into Twitch in the form of affiliate programs ("Buy this game
now"-buttons, adding Twitch Turbo to Amazon Prime and the likes).

I wouldn't even be surprised if down the road they'd announce a Steam-like
digital distribution thingymagick. Steam and it's competitors are rolling in
cash and have been getting quite some flack recently so now might be the best
time.

~~~
esrauch
Amazon already does digital distribution for video games and probably some
other PC software, in addition to their significantly more high profile
Android offering.

~~~
snuxoll
And while their storefront is adequate, their delivery and update systems are
abysmal. Steam hasn't won mindshare because it JUST made it easy to buy games
online, but it also made it easy to sign into an account, click a button and
play them anywhere, and keeps your software up-to-date in the background.

EA has the only competitor that comes close, but their tarnished reputation in
the gaming community has sullied the only worthwhile adversary Steam has.

------
mmxiii
Twitch is a great marketing platform for games/new games and this opens up the
ability for Twitch/streamers to monetize through Amazon referrals.

For now, Amazon is selling physical copies, but seems reasonable to reuse
their content delivery infrastructure for game downloads in the future.

~~~
specialp
I am a Twitch partner and just last week I received a survey asking me my
thoughts about affiliate marketing in regards to promoting free to play games,
selling games, and relate peripherals. Seems timely now.

~~~
CodeDiver
What questions were they asking?

------
antoncohen
The acquisition has been confirmed by Twitch:

[http://blog.twitch.tv/2014/08/a-letter-from-the-ceo-
august-2...](http://blog.twitch.tv/2014/08/a-letter-from-the-ceo-
august-25-2014/)

------
samelawrence
Wow. Google buying them made a lot of sense for deeper integration of live-
streaming services into YouTube and going after current-gen console owners...
but Amazon?

What are you working on, Jeff?

~~~
zanny
I think the general strategy is "Google wants it, so I want it, fu Google".

Amazon also has a lot of tv shows and movies through Amazon Prime now. So they
have something to do with video. Somewhat.

~~~
toomuchtodo
I've been an Amazon Prime customer for years, spend thousands of dollars a
year at Amazon, but have never once used Amazon Prime for their video or audio
content. Go figure.

Edit: If you use Amazon Prime for video/audio content, I'm curious!

~~~
freehunter
Doctor Who. That's the only reason I use Amazon Prime Instant Video. I like
Prime for the shipping and the no-extra-cost Kindle books, but with the
Instant Video, I just use it to watch the back catalog of Doctor Who.

Although the HBO content is tempting, and we do use it to watch Under the Dome
as well.

~~~
toomuchtodo
DOCTOR WHO!? Sold.

I really wish they'd include Unlimited Kindle as part of Prime :-/

~~~
Akkuma
Doctor Who is on Netflix, so unless they have access to the current season
that isn't a win to me.

~~~
serge2k
not via prime, but you can buy them as they come out.

------
bhouston
Theory: Something some imagined synergies with gaming to the Amazon FireTV
Console. But none of the micro-consoles have really succeeded with gaming.

Does anyone have statistics on whether FireTV is doing better with gaming that
OUYA? Does anyone actually use the gaming features?

~~~
tehwebguy
Amazon FireTV is already my favorite way to _watch_ twitch streams.

------
alexgaribay
Regardless of who actually ends up buying Twitch, I'm happy to see that they
are valued so highly. They are a great service and have helped make
competitive gaming more mainstream due to exposure.

------
ig1
Actual confirmation from BVP who are investors in Twitch:

[http://www.bvp.com/blog/twitch-time-wild-ride-start-
finish](http://www.bvp.com/blog/twitch-time-wild-ride-start-finish)

------
tdicola
How much longer does Amazon have before investors start beating the drum to
become profitable? Would love to see where Twitch fits into their bottom line
--I guess it might help sell Fire TVs?

~~~
adventured
Well they've been given a pass for approximately 18 out of their 20 year
existence, split into two segments of time.

There was a two year period of time after the dotcom crash was over where they
were beaten on pretty heavily about the lack of profitability.

It really doesn't matter if investors beat the drums frankly. Bezos controls
enough of Amazon's stock - roughly three times the next largest investor - it
would be difficult to spar with him, short of the stock truly plunging
(something like a 75% drop from here might do it). The Bezos family controls
roughly as much stock as the next five largest owners combined.

The correct answer is: so long as Amazon's sales continue to grow at ... 15%
to 25% per year, and the losses do not become life threatening again, the
drums will never get loud enough to disrupt what Bezos wants to do.

I expect with a $100b +/\- market cap, Amazon can continue to function without
much external concern for quite some time. $100b or so mostly keeps them out
of range of someone trying to buy them, and will enable continued acquisitions
as needed, while not bashing shareholders too much on the downside such that
everyone turns against Bezos. I see no reason they can't maintain that
perpetually with zero profits, if sales continue to grow, given the sales
scale they're likely to reach in the next decade. They will be given a serious
sales multiple so long as sales keep growing relatively quickly. Investors
will focus on that and be placated by the kool-aid. When sales growth stops,
investors will shift to demanding profits and dividends.

There would have to be some catastrophic setbacks, big losses, and a pause in
sales growth, to force Bezos into changing his approach. I suspect at that
point he would step aside and become just chairman.

However, keep in mind, Amazon would _love_ to have a cash cow. They'd love
nothing more than to print up $4 billion per year in profit from the fire
phone, or from their new advertising initiative. So they can show profits,
boom the stock, and perpetually run a tight margin business everywhere else.

~~~
timfrietas
I think you have it all right except for the end. If Amazon made an extra 4
billion dollars a year they would use it to attempt to dominate yet another
market. There are businesses inside the company that do make profit and they
are already reinvested into longer term seed projects.

------
bdz
As an avid gamer I'm happy about that. Rather Amazon than Google.

~~~
simonz05
Why? Whats the difference?

~~~
zanny
ContentID, versus a company not knee deep in the consumer video industry.

~~~
smackfu
Twitch already rolled out their own ContentID-styled system, pre-acquisition.

~~~
npizzolato
Pre-acquisition announcement! The timing of the two is so similar I think it's
beyond likely that the anti-copyright protection wasn't a part of the
negotiations.

------
tehwebguy
Twitch CEO just confirmed:
[https://twitter.com/Twitch/status/503996320349057024](https://twitter.com/Twitch/status/503996320349057024)

------
Someone1234
In recent times Amazon has started making content exclusive to their own
hardware (Amazon TV, Fire tablets/phones). Go check out the comparison chart
here:

[http://www.amazon.com/Fire-TV-streaming-media-
player/dp/B00C...](http://www.amazon.com/Fire-TV-streaming-media-
player/dp/B00CX5P8FC#compare)

Note what Amazon Prime Streaming works on. Then go here:

[http://www.amazon.com/gp/video/ontv/devices](http://www.amazon.com/gp/video/ontv/devices)

Note that aside from Apple's devices, Amazon Prime video works only on
Amazon's own mobile hardware.

Is this why they're buying Twitch? To make it another "Amazon Exclusive" for
Fire devices? Frankly that would explain a lot. If they can lock the content
down it will force people into their ecosystem if they want mobile access.

~~~
Nanzikambe
Buying a service primarily used by gamers streaming in game footage and
locking it down to non-gaming hardware would be beyond idiotic.

~~~
shawn-furyan
I agree. A big part of the valuation of twitch.tv is it's positioning in the
market. It doesn't make sense to drastically shock that positioning while
locking out a large contingent of users in the process.

If Amazon wanted a similar service to make exclusive to the Kindle ecosystem,
it would make much more sense to grow one themselves with deep integration
into the kindle line of products. They've done this with a lot of other
products and services, and certainly have the capability.

With Twitch, it would seem to make more sense for them to continue to seek
partnerships with gaming platforms so that the Twitch.tv brand is increasingly
ubiquitous in gaming, and then use that as a relatively extrinsic source of
growth.

I could see them locking out strategic players (hint: Google), and making
certain events or content exclusive to the Kindle ecosystem, but locking
everything down to Kindle doesn't strike me as a viable move.

------
eroo
Non-paywall article on the same:
[http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/08/amazon-not-google-
repo...](http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/08/amazon-not-google-reportedly-
buying-twitch-for-1-billion/)

None of the reporting outlets have any substantial details yet though.

------
grantlmiller
non-paywall link:
[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Famazon-
to-buy-video-site-twitch-for-more-
than-1-billion-1408988885&ei=m3j7U5DXGo79yQSLqoHwAg&usg=AFQjCNHUh6KbkYWRceJXAgTUgGkOoju02g&bvm=bv.73612305,d.aWw)

~~~
jboons
Still paywalled.

~~~
nacs
Works fine for me.

------
chx
How is $970 million more than $1B?

~~~
objclxt
...depends how much of the $1 billion is in stock, or is subject to meeting
certain targets, etc.

~~~
chx
Said to be cash.

------
programminggeek
So, this will change basically nothing about Twitch? I assume all of their
infrastructure is already on Amazon, so probably more business as usual than
having to move everything on to Google's infrastructure (which seems to
usually derail product development for 3-6 months on most acquisitions).

~~~
simonz05
Is twitch using Amazon for streaming video content? I wasn't aware that it was
cost efficient to deliver "free" video streams using AWS.

~~~
hootener
Based on earlier reports of Justin.tv's streaming architecture[1], I'm going
to say no.

Granted, that article is old, but I think a pretty serious investment in
physical infrastructure has been made by Justin.tv/Twitch. So I'm more willing
to believe they're still leveraging some variation of this architecture rather
than AWS.

[[http://highscalability.com/blog/2010/3/16/justintvs-live-
vid...](http://highscalability.com/blog/2010/3/16/justintvs-live-video-
broadcasting-architecture.html)]

------
oelmekki
Could that be acqui-hire dodging ?

As mentioned, twitch is a very central part of esport community. But in the
same time, it might not have enough credibility on "mainstream" startup world.
I wonder if google was interested in twitch service more than twitch team.

------
funkyy
Alternative link that does not require log in or sign up to WSJ:

[http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/25/amazon-will-buy-twitch-
for-...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/25/amazon-will-buy-twitch-for-
over-1-billion/)

------
alexyes
It is confirmed: [http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-
ne...](http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-
newsArticle&ID=1960768&highlight=)

------
mbesto
The underlying story for me here is this:

Twitch has the potential to both compete in the same sentence as ESPN ($$$
bil) and provide a new model for content delivery in sports content
consumption.

~~~
ProAm
I'd glady pay for live sports streaming, it's the only thing I really miss
from cutting the cable cord: F1, NHL.

~~~
gtaylor
I gladly pay for MLB.tv. The blackouts are annoying, but you can circumvent
them easily if you so desire.

------
LeicaLatte
Given their recent track record in making products in house (looking at you 3d
phone lol) this is good for amazon. They can never build a streaming community
this cool.

------
MarketingDevil
In this rate it's just a matter of time until e-sports becomes more popular
than some contact sports.

------
LeicaLatte
Glad Twitch has some clout now to fight big intimidating movie studios
whenever needed.

------
tzm
I predict Twitch will become Amazon's Youtube.

------
goeric
Here's a short URL to the full WSJ article:
[http://bit.ly/wsjtwitch](http://bit.ly/wsjtwitch)

~~~
kudu
Thanks, but it isn't working for me.

------
mmuro
_Amazon.com Inc. has agreed to acquire Twitch, a live-streaming service for
videogame players, for more than $1 billion, according to a person who has
been briefed on the matter.

The deal could be announced as soon as Monday, the person said.

Google Inc. had earlier been in talks to acquire Twitch, but those talks
cooled in recent weeks, according to people familiar with the matter.

Twitch, launched in June 2011, is the most popular Internet destination for
watching and broadcasting videogame play. The startup raised $20 million from
investors, including Thrive Capital and videogame-maker Take-Two Interactive
Software Inc. in September.

News of the acquisition was earlier reported by tech website The Information._

~~~
crisnoble
For others wondering, yes, this is the entirety of the article.

~~~
bagosm
Then that's kind of... illegal to have here

~~~
fastball
Haha, being downvoted for being right.

------
namityadav
Can we please have a rule against posting paywall links? I know we can find a
cached version or search on Google or whatever, but it's still frustrating!
We're not talking about work-arounds.

Imagine what our reaction will be if someone posts a link to their own blog
which doesn't allow visitor to read the content without paying $1. Even if
they have a work-around like you can inspect element and hide the paywall
popup.

~~~
malchow
But what if it is news broken by WSJ proprietary investigation? Should there
really be a rule on HN that dampens original reporting?

~~~
johnward
It's not helpful, even if they break it first, if you cannot read the actual
article.

~~~
ep103
The title alerted you to the news, you can search for coverage on other
outlets after it breaks.

~~~
usea
The submitter can find another outlet and submit that. Submitting a paywall
article is like submitting an item with no link at all, with text content
"google it."

------
kudu
In this case, linking to the WSJ article wasn't helpful or advisable, and
isn't in the best interest of readers. First of all, it's paywalled, and
requires a Google search as a workaround, and not every reader is aware of
that.

The main issue with it is that it doesn't bode well with the requirement for
original reporting. In this case, there are 4 sources of which I'm aware (The
Information, WSJ, Bloomberg and Recode) who reported on this, and all of them
were original reports. Even if The Information was first to press, they all
conducted their reporting indepedently and the fact that four sources have the
same information is very relevant. By linking to only one original report,
you're depriving the average HN reader of knowledge of this journalistic
consensus.

Even if the link had to be to an original report, it would make more sense to
link to The Information, which is also paywalled, but was first to press. But
really, I'd prefer the top HN link to be to a site like Ars Technica, which
diligently compiled all the different reports.

------
genericacct
Please let me know when it's official so i can short AMZN ..

------
rhspeer
I just watched 4 guys get stuck in a dumpster and shout profanities at each
other for 2 minutes. A questionable use of a billion dollars IMHO.

Maybe this means I'm old now?

~~~
fletchowns
What is the point you are trying to make here? That every stream on twitch may
not appeal to everyone? We already know that.

To use the obvious comparison: If I turn on the television and flip to a
random channel and I'm not interested, does that mean TV as a whole is
worthless?

~~~
oldmanjay
I don't even own a random channel

------
paul7986
I'm still bummed they closed my cable TV service, justin.tv.

I have since found other TV/movie streaming sites, but none are as mature or
reliable as JTV was.

~~~
paul7986
Why does this get voted down? This what a lot of people used JTV for and it
was a great service!

~~~
Crito
The reason they closed down your "cable TV service" was largely _because_ it
was your "cable TV service". Compared to twitch that website must have been an
absolute nightmare to run.

You may as well complain _" I'm upset that the city bulldozed all of those
crack houses; they were a really great place to buy crack."_

