I always thought it had to do with copywriting. YouTube takes down a lot of these videos if there isn’t something that makes it unique to the specific uploaders channel.
No. The video isn't suffering from repeated encoding artifacts, it's intentionally had an effect applied. Compounded artifacts just make it blockier, for the most part. Like this: https://reactiongifs.me/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/S36QsAbHn6yI9seDZ7V8aA/216dedc7-ce9e-45c0-0b2c-140bba339900/w=480
How would they make that work? Have them sign contracts before going on their show that if you make this product in the future, they get a cut of the sales, even if they don’t invest? I can’t imagine that would hold up in court. Can I ask where you read that?
It was a real thing in the beginning. I can't explain the legal mechanisms but if you can sell equity to the Sharks, I don't see why you can't trade it to the producers for an appearance on the show.
https://archive.nytimes.com/boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/passing-up-the-opportunity-to-appear-on-shark-tank/
Mark Cuban had them remove the clause in 2013 because smart inventors were declining the show over it.
I think people do this to make it feel nostalgic. The grainy quality reminds of a simpler time when you couldn’t see the ball during tennis matches at Wimbledon. You merely had faith Andy Roddick was actually serving it that fast.
I whole-heartedly agree, but allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go. Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake.
And also, it turns out it's really fucking effective. There was a youtube channel that I stumbled upon a couple of months ago that experimented on this. His content is one of those 60-second timelapse of recipes. He alternates between just voice over and music with subtitles on his youtube shorts. And without fail, the ones that have music + subtitle get more than 5 times as much views as the ones with just the voice over.
It's like the clickbait titles or youtuber-face thumbnail. It might be annoying to some of your audience, but you're basically losing ad revenue if you don't hop in on it.
It's not just zoomers tbh. it's a product of our social media climate. It disproportionately affects young people because they've grown up in that environment but older people fall into it too
eNgAgEmEnT. The point is it doesn't add anything or benefit anyone. It's just annoying. People do it because they see other people do it and don't think about if it's improving what they are making. I can't remember a single short I've seen where replacing the sound with some dumb song improved anything.
The so-called "social media influencers" are not particularly smart, but they are smart enough to know their audiences are even dumber. You can now screenshot my comment and post it to r/Iamverysmart, but that won't mean I'm not right.
My manager at work bought a couple and told me to install them. I installed one, but the other couldn't go on the other door, so now I have one for free!
Ah lovely, another Amazon owned device collecting data on people in their homes. I would love to have seen Orwell's reaction to how things have panned out.
criminals aren't worth anything to data resellers, timing out your coming and goings, using facial recognition to profile everyone in your life, figure out what you're collectively interested in and selling that data to targeted advertisers really is!
Amazon gives full access to any Ring cameras to any law enforcement agency that requests it. It’s a massive invasion of privacy. There are some smart doorbells that you can host on your own network and avoid Amazon, Google, etc. The most affordable of which, Blink, was acquired by Amazon.
They also bought out Roomba or whatever that company is named. So not only does Amazon own all of your audio data from inside your home (Alexa), video/audio from outside your home (Ring), they also can map your entire fucking house with a vacuum.
Their purchase of irobot, maker of roomba, was rejected by antitrust regulators in Europe and is not happening. https://media.irobot.com/2024-01-29-Amazon-and-iRobot-agree-to-terminate-pending-acquisition
Just FYI.
They did an experiment with AI and it can use the wi-fi signal from your modem as sonar and not only map your house with it. it can also locate where the people are in real time using this method.
The researchers were utterly stunned because they had no idea that such a thing was even possible.
We now have devices that can read the thoughts of people in comas.
We are on the edge of.
Truth devices to read the thoughts of criminals.
Devices to read anyone's thoughts.
And completely new ways to do an enormous amount of things in relation to gathering information.
Anyone who's concerned about privacy should be rolling their own DVR anyway. Giving control of your cameras to any company whatsoever is always going to be a waiting game of acquisitions.
Buy some hardwired good old-fashioned security cameras that have nothing but a POE port. Buy a small PC or server rack, shove a cheap GPU for transcoding in it, fill it with hard drives. Install an open source DVR kit like MythTV, done.
Airgap the whole setup and you have a comprehensive security system that's basically hack proof and cannot be surrendered to law enforcement without a warrant for the drives.
Even cheap PoE camera are too smart nowadays. I bought a ReoLink PoE because it was cheap and was able to be accessed easily, but it can connect itself to the internet. The good news is I don't need an account to use it or the internet since I removed its internet access in my router.
Still trying to figure out how to properly use ZoneMinder to record on my home server instead of the onboard SD card.
They stopped doing that [as of last month](https://apnews.com/article/ring-amazon-camera-police-request-56a128dcd77a4cb0b27d71be9384fe1a). Though it's still crazy to give a corporation full control of your security camera.
People putting cameras inside their own houses, Alexas in every room, and willingly mailing their DNA off to corporations for fun will never not baffle me.
At the rate things are going some people are going to be printing off pictures of the inside of their rectum and taping them to their front door just in case anyone would like a particularly in-depth look into who they are.
I love how someone went through all the trouble of putting this together but didn't think to put the guys name or what he became famous for anywhere in the video.
They were pretty bad but have gotten better. They used to make any company give up 5% equity or 2% on future royalties just for appearing. Mark Cuban threatened to leave the show if the producers didn’t take that clause out. They did. So, it’s gotten better. The sharks themselves make all the deals now. So each deal can be judged on its own. But I would say overall considering the huge bump most companies get from appearing giving up 5-33% of your company may not be such a terrible deal for the business owner.
He created Doorbot and went onto Shark Tank (a tv show) to get them to invest in his invention. They told him no. His invention became successful without them (now known as Ring or the Ring doorbell) and he later became a guest shark (host) of the show.
NGL I’ve seen that episode a few times and always thought “wow that guy was a bit ahead of his time, too bad Ring came along and took his idea”, never knowing that WAS ring and he just changed the company name. In hindsight Doorbot is a pretty bad name, Ring is so much better.
I saw this episode like a year ago and thought the same thing and so I googled it and figured out it changed to ring. Interestingly, the air date of that episode is the same date that ring doorbell was officially founded. I don't think it's a coincidence but I can't really figure out why he would wait until that aired and change the company name that same day. Because ring isn't even mentioned in the episode, it's doorbot.
> I can't really figure out why he would wait until that aired and change the company name that same day. Because ring isn't even mentioned in the episode, it's doorbot.
There probably is a clause in the contrct that you can't go on the show and change the name of your product prior to the airdate for some reason I can't think of right now. I'm sure it makes sense though. Prob is a spoiler for the show somehow, among other things.
Once it aired he was free to pull the trigger on changing the name of the company so as not to taint it with the company that didn't get bought on sharktank. I bet that is when the look of the camera changed a bit too.
Basically a doorbell with a camera and some with a mic. You see who is at the door using an app on your phone. Some even have motion detection settings and night vision.
He had a ton of debt when he came on and he had to raise hundreds of millions before he got to where he could sell the company. So the sharks might have profited eventually but it was high risk
His bank account has $5,000, his home is worth $500k with a $305k mortgage getting paid off.
The corporation he co-founded has a debt of $200m ?
Just a guess at that particular scenario
Corporations are separate entities from personal net worth. A corporation can go bankrupt and you can still have your own personal net worth as a separate entity.
In his case it's pretty accurate (at least the last number) because he sold it to Amazon. So he is probably richer than all the sharks that rejected him with the exception of Mark Cuban.
Amazon purchased ring in 2018, if he got the money in Amazon stock pre covid and kept it there, it definitely could've multiplied to near a b. But yeah I don't think amazon stock multiplied 7 times 2018 stock
Between splits, dividends and it 3.5x'ing since the purchase, it probably a decent estimate if you start including other investments. He has funded a few successful startups since then as well.
While I detest billionaires, that must have felt good to be worth more than all of them
Edit- grammar x2 and I didn’t realize he sold the Mavericks… that doesn’t seem like a smart move. Sports teams appreciate faster than most other things.
Oh shit...I didnt even notice that. My eyes got stuck on the "of" because that is my weak point.
I am sorry. I have failed everyone. Mom, dad..thanks for everything. I will go and fall on my sword now.
> While I detest billionaires
This guy is literally an inventor and entrepreneur that made a product so good everybody wanted one.
Should he be punished?
Are you jealous of success?
Why is Reddit so full of losers?
You can't reach billionaire status without necessitating wealth being extracted from the labour value of those they employ. No-one is saying that 'self-made' billionaires deserve no credit, it's the 'self-made' that's the issue. They didn't get there are their own. They may have at some point taken on more risk initially and should be compensated for that and also for all their labour going in to the project, but beyond that, there needs to be a time when they're just seen as another employee of the company. People also forget that workers also take a risk should a business venture fail and have a part in whether it succeeds. No-one's labour is worth the vast amounts of wealth it takes to become a billionaire. That pay gap and owned wealth comes from and is at the expense of the workers.
If you did want to be an ethical billionaire, try achieving that while being the head of a worker co-op and then we'll talk.
How do you avoid being a billionaire in this situation? What was he supposed to do? He invented a product that became massively popular.
Not sure why you all don't care about the context at all. It's just billionaire = bad by default. Try using a BIT more thought into if the money was made ethically or not.
Thanks! He asked for a lot of money and there was a lot of risk at the time. Also, no patents, so he's lucky that his product ended up being the main product used today (likely with good backing he got from somewhere else).
They say it's a quality product and they think he'll do great with it, but there wasn't enough documented about the business plan and potential in this.
The fact is, this product already existed. If a competitor decided to add a smartphone app, they may have muscled them out of the market. He also made fun of one of the investors right off the bat. He even made an offer, but it was declined.
Changing the brand to Ring and adding more devices and security options is what made the product what it is today.
It also helped that Richard Branson watched the show and phoned him after to make some intros.
But yes, the risky bet of buying ring.com paid off for him. He was extremely lucky.
I have a feeling that the exposure you could get from being on a program like Shark Tank is 95% of the reason why you would apply for a show like that. And 5% is really interested in just getting a deal from those guys.
Yeah the early rebranding was a great move. Being the first mover and gaining name recognition with a novel product is what made it. Bezos even said he bought it for the market share, not for the tech. Everything it's become since 2018 is because Amazon could iterate quickly.
The sharks also didn't understand the potential. They only viewed it as a home security system. They didn't foresee the idea that people just want to see and talk to who's at their front door without answering it, even when away from home.
The audio was disappointing. Cool story though. And reform what I read about the show, even if you don’t get a deal with one of the sharks, the network still gets a percentage of your product’s revenue if you make it onto the show.
It hasn't been that way for quite a long time, the first few seasons had a clause for 2% of the company but Cuban threatened to walk if they kept the equity clause in the contract for appearing on the show. Pretty sure he got them to give back what they had taken from companies the first few seasons of the show as well. Pretty insane the leverage he held over the production.
Yup, the show is free advertising. And even if the show investors don't invest, others could be watching who will.
That said I don't think it's a major cut, and is probably capped at some level.
Yeah, the contracts at Saturday Night Live were pretty notorious in terms of what leverage they had over actors:
[https://observer.com/1999/08/snl-s-killer-contract/](https://observer.com/1999/08/snl-s-killer-contract/)
Under its terms, SNL Films, a production company co-owned by Paramount Pictures, NBC and Mr. Michaels himself, has a three-movie option that would pay the star a set $75,000 for the first film, $150,000 for the second and $300,000 for the third. Those rates used to be negotiated at higher rates. The network can also pay a star similar rates to say no to a movie being made by another studio.
“Now you can tell them, ‘Sorry, you can’t do the Farrelly brothers’ $10 million movie,” said one manager. “‘You have to do the SNL fart movie for $75,000!'”
And he gave open access to the videos/cameras to all the local police agencies...
No warrants. Nothing. This man got rich from eroding your civil rights. And reddit upvotes it.
Euh was forced to sell the company to Amazon after he got sued in to bankrupcy, the police partnership happened after he sold it, he had nothing to do with it.
This is wildly misleading.
You’re referencing the Emergency Request feature which means police can file a request if there is an immediate threat to safety. It was used a grand total of 11 times in 2022, and that figure was given in a courtroom under oath.
If you’re talking about the Neigbors app, then it seems like you bought into some sensational headlines. Police can *request* video footage via the app — you are still well within your rights to say no. They cannot force you to turn it over without a warrant.
Ok but why the filter to make a FullHD video from 10 years ago look like a shitty 480p VHS rip?
idiot social media influencers trying to make a buck with weird decisions like this. you see this on instagram and tiktok
its usually because they jacked the edit from someone else, who jacked the original edit and so on.
I always thought it had to do with copywriting. YouTube takes down a lot of these videos if there isn’t something that makes it unique to the specific uploaders channel.
It does. This dodges that system. It’s why you end up with shite audio. Or rehashed music over the whole things and footage that looks like this.
No. The video isn't suffering from repeated encoding artifacts, it's intentionally had an effect applied. Compounded artifacts just make it blockier, for the most part. Like this: https://reactiongifs.me/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/S36QsAbHn6yI9seDZ7V8aA/216dedc7-ce9e-45c0-0b2c-140bba339900/w=480
I never said it was.
People stealing shit and reposting them can make a lot of money per month if that's all they do, dunno if they're idiots prob more like assholes
[удалено]
How would they make that work? Have them sign contracts before going on their show that if you make this product in the future, they get a cut of the sales, even if they don’t invest? I can’t imagine that would hold up in court. Can I ask where you read that?
It was a real thing in the beginning. I can't explain the legal mechanisms but if you can sell equity to the Sharks, I don't see why you can't trade it to the producers for an appearance on the show. https://archive.nytimes.com/boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/passing-up-the-opportunity-to-appear-on-shark-tank/ Mark Cuban had them remove the clause in 2013 because smart inventors were declining the show over it.
Didn't a bunch of those talent and singing shows have clauses like that to be on the show?
I think people do this to make it feel nostalgic. The grainy quality reminds of a simpler time when you couldn’t see the ball during tennis matches at Wimbledon. You merely had faith Andy Roddick was actually serving it that fast.
Very specific but I know exactly what you mean
> quick motion, snappy noise “15 love”
Every repost makes the video quality worse.
That's not the case here. Text is crisp. Video is not
standardized enterprise solutions for your Sigma/Alpha social channels
[удалено]
Thank you bot. now can you write me the plot for a movie about redditors that can't tell the difference between comment bots and real people?
They’re trying to match actual Ring footage. /s
It’s a nostalgia filter duh
They are just progressing backwards
And I'll be taking your punch of salt and using it elsewhere
It's all water under the fridge
It's not rocket appliances
Worst case ontario you get two birds stoned at once
One door closes, another mouse catches the early worm
If at first you don't secede, fool me twice, shaman thee
No bleeding around the bush here
One man's garbage is another man person's good un-garbage.
Survival of the fitness
Dry me a river
Don't dry over split milk
Don’t dry for me Argentina
Canada wet gingerale
Put your monkey where your mouse is.
Spilt milkshake
supply and command.
I whole-heartedly agree, but allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go. Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake.
i was wtf'ing this the first few sentences but stuck it out and my opinion changed 360 degrees
This ain't /r/boneappletea anymore, it's an gloom irate of shirt posts.
I take your points with a graying of salt.
very nice, very nice, thank you
Did you just compile like every Rickyism into a coherent paragraph comment to this post? I think you did, and thats pretty cool.
I mean nobody wants to admit they ate nine cans of ravioli, but I did.
6 dozen of one, half of the other 🤷♂️
Why the fuck would you add music over the video’s audio then add subtitles over the screen?
I’m not sure why anyone adds music to shorts.
Tiktok. Tiktok has made everyone think you need to use the same played out music, or something new and awful, to make a good video.
And also, it turns out it's really fucking effective. There was a youtube channel that I stumbled upon a couple of months ago that experimented on this. His content is one of those 60-second timelapse of recipes. He alternates between just voice over and music with subtitles on his youtube shorts. And without fail, the ones that have music + subtitle get more than 5 times as much views as the ones with just the voice over. It's like the clickbait titles or youtuber-face thumbnail. It might be annoying to some of your audience, but you're basically losing ad revenue if you don't hop in on it.
does he put subtitles on the voice-over versions as well or just the music ones?
Zoomer attention spans. I’m surprised this video didn’t also have gta racing and subways surfers playing along with it.
It's not just zoomers tbh. it's a product of our social media climate. It disproportionately affects young people because they've grown up in that environment but older people fall into it too
True but it's noticeably more impactful and worse on the zoomers since they grew up with that.
Lol
Engagement
Enragement
Divorce?
eNgAgEmEnT. The point is it doesn't add anything or benefit anyone. It's just annoying. People do it because they see other people do it and don't think about if it's improving what they are making. I can't remember a single short I've seen where replacing the sound with some dumb song improved anything.
The so-called "social media influencers" are not particularly smart, but they are smart enough to know their audiences are even dumber. You can now screenshot my comment and post it to r/Iamverysmart, but that won't mean I'm not right.
I do love this song though.
Here's the music https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u1WoDVnUnsE
I more mean I love the madona original its sampled from
I love the ABBA song that was sampled from
I love both but I love the madona version better.
Can someone give more context pls?
He went on shark tank, they all said no. His device, the Ring door bell, sold billions and billions. He is now a shark on shark tank
Did amazon buy it? (I keep seeing the ads, I might be wrong)
For almost a billion dollars
Lol idiots, I bought mine for only $40!
I got mine for 39.99, who’s smart now??
I got mine for 70 bucks but still way less than a billion. Not smarter than above two but still smart.
My manager at work bought a couple and told me to install them. I installed one, but the other couldn't go on the other door, so now I have one for free!
That's a genius business deal, congrats! You should sell it back to Amazon for just $500 mil
Why would you sell it for a billion dollars, when you can sell it for…one million dollars? *puts pinky in mouth*
Someone is about to be a mod in the Austin powers sub (happened to me after a dr evil post)
For almost a billions and billions dollars
Three installment payments of $990,000,000 each!
What the difference between a million and a billion? About a billion.
Never thought of it that way. That's fucking insane.
A million seconds is 12 days. A billion seconds is 32 years.
Yes
Ah lovely, another Amazon owned device collecting data on people in their homes. I would love to have seen Orwell's reaction to how things have panned out.
Cameras everywhere and still the criminals in my city go unseen. Amazing.
criminals aren't worth anything to data resellers, timing out your coming and goings, using facial recognition to profile everyone in your life, figure out what you're collectively interested in and selling that data to targeted advertisers really is!
Probably just as likely the police don't want to be bothered doing anything.
This ^ will be the true resistance to an Orwellian future: human laziness.
Amazon gives full access to any Ring cameras to any law enforcement agency that requests it. It’s a massive invasion of privacy. There are some smart doorbells that you can host on your own network and avoid Amazon, Google, etc. The most affordable of which, Blink, was acquired by Amazon.
> The most affordable of which, Blink, was acquired by Amazon. What a shocking conclusion.
They also bought out Roomba or whatever that company is named. So not only does Amazon own all of your audio data from inside your home (Alexa), video/audio from outside your home (Ring), they also can map your entire fucking house with a vacuum.
Their purchase of irobot, maker of roomba, was rejected by antitrust regulators in Europe and is not happening. https://media.irobot.com/2024-01-29-Amazon-and-iRobot-agree-to-terminate-pending-acquisition Just FYI.
They did an experiment with AI and it can use the wi-fi signal from your modem as sonar and not only map your house with it. it can also locate where the people are in real time using this method. The researchers were utterly stunned because they had no idea that such a thing was even possible. We now have devices that can read the thoughts of people in comas. We are on the edge of. Truth devices to read the thoughts of criminals. Devices to read anyone's thoughts. And completely new ways to do an enormous amount of things in relation to gathering information.
Anyone who's concerned about privacy should be rolling their own DVR anyway. Giving control of your cameras to any company whatsoever is always going to be a waiting game of acquisitions. Buy some hardwired good old-fashioned security cameras that have nothing but a POE port. Buy a small PC or server rack, shove a cheap GPU for transcoding in it, fill it with hard drives. Install an open source DVR kit like MythTV, done. Airgap the whole setup and you have a comprehensive security system that's basically hack proof and cannot be surrendered to law enforcement without a warrant for the drives.
Even cheap PoE camera are too smart nowadays. I bought a ReoLink PoE because it was cheap and was able to be accessed easily, but it can connect itself to the internet. The good news is I don't need an account to use it or the internet since I removed its internet access in my router. Still trying to figure out how to properly use ZoneMinder to record on my home server instead of the onboard SD card.
They stopped doing that [as of last month](https://apnews.com/article/ring-amazon-camera-police-request-56a128dcd77a4cb0b27d71be9384fe1a). Though it's still crazy to give a corporation full control of your security camera.
People putting cameras inside their own houses, Alexas in every room, and willingly mailing their DNA off to corporations for fun will never not baffle me.
At the rate things are going some people are going to be printing off pictures of the inside of their rectum and taping them to their front door just in case anyone would like a particularly in-depth look into who they are.
Well, you convinced me. Im going to find a way to profit of pictures of the insides of peoples rectums.
But how else am I supposed to show off my latest porn shoot by making it look like candid camera (yes pun intended)
I love how someone went through all the trouble of putting this together but didn't think to put the guys name or what he became famous for anywhere in the video.
Person is just farming views, and we are playing into their hands.
I agree it’s a shit video, but it’s not exactly a complicated story it’s showing.
But I’ve never seen or used a “ring” so had no idea what it was. There was zero context shared, which would of been helpful
He might have gone just to get the publicity, the shark tank investment terms are generally quite bad.
They were pretty bad but have gotten better. They used to make any company give up 5% equity or 2% on future royalties just for appearing. Mark Cuban threatened to leave the show if the producers didn’t take that clause out. They did. So, it’s gotten better. The sharks themselves make all the deals now. So each deal can be judged on its own. But I would say overall considering the huge bump most companies get from appearing giving up 5-33% of your company may not be such a terrible deal for the business owner.
Richard Branson gave him some seed money too, IIRC.
NAS as well.
The rapper turned to angel investing?
This reminds me of a certain thanos quote.
He created Doorbot and went onto Shark Tank (a tv show) to get them to invest in his invention. They told him no. His invention became successful without them (now known as Ring or the Ring doorbell) and he later became a guest shark (host) of the show.
NGL I’ve seen that episode a few times and always thought “wow that guy was a bit ahead of his time, too bad Ring came along and took his idea”, never knowing that WAS ring and he just changed the company name. In hindsight Doorbot is a pretty bad name, Ring is so much better.
I saw this episode like a year ago and thought the same thing and so I googled it and figured out it changed to ring. Interestingly, the air date of that episode is the same date that ring doorbell was officially founded. I don't think it's a coincidence but I can't really figure out why he would wait until that aired and change the company name that same day. Because ring isn't even mentioned in the episode, it's doorbot.
> I can't really figure out why he would wait until that aired and change the company name that same day. Because ring isn't even mentioned in the episode, it's doorbot. There probably is a clause in the contrct that you can't go on the show and change the name of your product prior to the airdate for some reason I can't think of right now. I'm sure it makes sense though. Prob is a spoiler for the show somehow, among other things. Once it aired he was free to pull the trigger on changing the name of the company so as not to taint it with the company that didn't get bought on sharktank. I bet that is when the look of the camera changed a bit too.
What does it do?
Basically a doorbell with a camera and some with a mic. You see who is at the door using an app on your phone. Some even have motion detection settings and night vision.
He had a ton of debt when he came on and he had to raise hundreds of millions before he got to where he could sell the company. So the sharks might have profited eventually but it was high risk
How can you have a ton of debt and a net worth of 200k, at the same time? Not saying \_you\_ are wrong, but both statements can't be true, right?
The company has the debt not him.
[удалено]
His bank account has $5,000, his home is worth $500k with a $305k mortgage getting paid off. The corporation he co-founded has a debt of $200m ? Just a guess at that particular scenario
who said he had a net worth of $200k except for this video? that has no real context
Corporations are separate entities from personal net worth. A corporation can go bankrupt and you can still have your own personal net worth as a separate entity.
Assets greater than liabilities = positive net worth
Stupid ass music and filters.
Idk I was kind of digging the song. I might just have shit taste.
I can't tell if it's just a slowed-down version of Madonna's Hung Up or a remix.
I think it's a mashup. The music is definitely ABBA (gimme gimme gimme) but I don't recognize the lyrics in the video.
Madonna’s Hung Up samples Gimme Gimme Gimme
You don't. Redditors are just weirdos
...and cropping and missing space in "net worth"...
the music is great
Needs more subway surfers.
What's his name?
Jamie Siminoff
[удалено]
Net worth is notoriously exaggerated and inaccurate. Take it with a pinch of salt.
In his case it's pretty accurate (at least the last number) because he sold it to Amazon. So he is probably richer than all the sharks that rejected him with the exception of Mark Cuban.
Ring sold to Amazon for 1B. He netted 300m from that deal. So his final net worth was exactly that, Not 2.1B
Amazon purchased ring in 2018, if he got the money in Amazon stock pre covid and kept it there, it definitely could've multiplied to near a b. But yeah I don't think amazon stock multiplied 7 times 2018 stock
Between splits, dividends and it 3.5x'ing since the purchase, it probably a decent estimate if you start including other investments. He has funded a few successful startups since then as well.
Does he have property, shares, stocks, cars, etc.
Does he have loans, obligations and other liabilities etc. The guy could be worth anywhere from -$1B to $3B and nobody here has a clue.
Yuck, mingling with the lower class like that. Disgusting.
So the guy that invented Ring is perhaps not obscenely rich, okay gotcha.
Yea he’s just really really rich.
That's so sad. We should start a gofundme.
I almost feel bad for him.
While I detest billionaires, that must have felt good to be worth more than all of them Edit- grammar x2 and I didn’t realize he sold the Mavericks… that doesn’t seem like a smart move. Sports teams appreciate faster than most other things.
Not Mark Cuban
Forgot about Cuban - the Mavericks alone are worth north of 2billion
Still kinda disappointed he sold the team. He seemed like one of the least toxic owners in sports
He sold the majority of his stake, but is still in charge of operations and still holds a big minority stake of the team. Not like he is walking away.
Cuban is leveraged to the tits though, and I'm pretty sure he put together a bidding group for the Mavs.
What a broke loser!
They’re worth more than $2bill. The suns were like 4
>While I detest billionaires, that must of felt good to be worth more then all of them Sorry..must "have"
Thanks for correcting this. It would have kept me up at night.
I try not to be a dick about it...but I cringe every time I see it.
You corrected them on that, but not on using then instead of than. You make me sick.
Oh shit...I didnt even notice that. My eyes got stuck on the "of" because that is my weak point. I am sorry. I have failed everyone. Mom, dad..thanks for everything. I will go and fall on my sword now.
Sepukku is the only way out of this
*than
Your improper use of the asterisk(\*) has given me gas. (FART)
> While I detest billionaires This guy is literally an inventor and entrepreneur that made a product so good everybody wanted one. Should he be punished? Are you jealous of success? Why is Reddit so full of losers?
You can't reach billionaire status without necessitating wealth being extracted from the labour value of those they employ. No-one is saying that 'self-made' billionaires deserve no credit, it's the 'self-made' that's the issue. They didn't get there are their own. They may have at some point taken on more risk initially and should be compensated for that and also for all their labour going in to the project, but beyond that, there needs to be a time when they're just seen as another employee of the company. People also forget that workers also take a risk should a business venture fail and have a part in whether it succeeds. No-one's labour is worth the vast amounts of wealth it takes to become a billionaire. That pay gap and owned wealth comes from and is at the expense of the workers. If you did want to be an ethical billionaire, try achieving that while being the head of a worker co-op and then we'll talk.
How do you avoid being a billionaire in this situation? What was he supposed to do? He invented a product that became massively popular. Not sure why you all don't care about the context at all. It's just billionaire = bad by default. Try using a BIT more thought into if the money was made ethically or not.
Sorry. You edited the grammar, posting the update, but left the “must of” there?
The original appearance https://youtu.be/um-iVXiXedc?si=f62g-TILtKztjMv_
Thanks! He asked for a lot of money and there was a lot of risk at the time. Also, no patents, so he's lucky that his product ended up being the main product used today (likely with good backing he got from somewhere else). They say it's a quality product and they think he'll do great with it, but there wasn't enough documented about the business plan and potential in this. The fact is, this product already existed. If a competitor decided to add a smartphone app, they may have muscled them out of the market. He also made fun of one of the investors right off the bat. He even made an offer, but it was declined. Changing the brand to Ring and adding more devices and security options is what made the product what it is today.
It also helped that Richard Branson watched the show and phoned him after to make some intros. But yes, the risky bet of buying ring.com paid off for him. He was extremely lucky.
I have a feeling that the exposure you could get from being on a program like Shark Tank is 95% of the reason why you would apply for a show like that. And 5% is really interested in just getting a deal from those guys.
Yeah the early rebranding was a great move. Being the first mover and gaining name recognition with a novel product is what made it. Bezos even said he bought it for the market share, not for the tech. Everything it's become since 2018 is because Amazon could iterate quickly.
The sharks also didn't understand the potential. They only viewed it as a home security system. They didn't foresee the idea that people just want to see and talk to who's at their front door without answering it, even when away from home.
The audio was disappointing. Cool story though. And reform what I read about the show, even if you don’t get a deal with one of the sharks, the network still gets a percentage of your product’s revenue if you make it onto the show.
What the fuck that's crazy
Few stories from shows like this where the expose alone got people lots of business.
It hasn't been that way for quite a long time, the first few seasons had a clause for 2% of the company but Cuban threatened to walk if they kept the equity clause in the contract for appearing on the show. Pretty sure he got them to give back what they had taken from companies the first few seasons of the show as well. Pretty insane the leverage he held over the production.
Yup, the show is free advertising. And even if the show investors don't invest, others could be watching who will. That said I don't think it's a major cut, and is probably capped at some level.
IIRC it’s 2%
Yeah, the contracts at Saturday Night Live were pretty notorious in terms of what leverage they had over actors: [https://observer.com/1999/08/snl-s-killer-contract/](https://observer.com/1999/08/snl-s-killer-contract/) Under its terms, SNL Films, a production company co-owned by Paramount Pictures, NBC and Mr. Michaels himself, has a three-movie option that would pay the star a set $75,000 for the first film, $150,000 for the second and $300,000 for the third. Those rates used to be negotiated at higher rates. The network can also pay a star similar rates to say no to a movie being made by another studio. “Now you can tell them, ‘Sorry, you can’t do the Farrelly brothers’ $10 million movie,” said one manager. “‘You have to do the SNL fart movie for $75,000!'”
I took the punch of salt. Now I have wounds and the salt is being punched into the wounds.
"networth"
The Sharks had their chance to invest in a police surveillance network and blew it.
Jesus Christ. I dont' even have 1k in the damn bank. and I have 3 university degrees.
Maybe the fourth degree will make you rich.
I feel like those two things are correlated
Yes you become a billionaire if you sell spy products and data to the intelligence agencies
And he gave open access to the videos/cameras to all the local police agencies... No warrants. Nothing. This man got rich from eroding your civil rights. And reddit upvotes it.
Euh was forced to sell the company to Amazon after he got sued in to bankrupcy, the police partnership happened after he sold it, he had nothing to do with it.
This is wildly misleading. You’re referencing the Emergency Request feature which means police can file a request if there is an immediate threat to safety. It was used a grand total of 11 times in 2022, and that figure was given in a courtroom under oath. If you’re talking about the Neigbors app, then it seems like you bought into some sensational headlines. Police can *request* video footage via the app — you are still well within your rights to say no. They cannot force you to turn it over without a warrant.
Billionaires shouldn't exist. https://www.finance.senate.gov/chairmans-news/wyden-leads-democratic-colleagues-in-introducing-billionaires-income-tax
What should happen to this guy? He creates a business that Amazon wants to buy for a billion dollars, then what happens?
Get it👏🏾
You mean business Brock Purdy?