Sounds like you like a Bloomberg-Stocktwits merger, Howard.
howardlindzon
· 2 months ago
Yep
Leigh Drogen
· 2 months ago
I have a friend who is a developer at Bloomberg, he is currently leading up the code writing for one of the biggest projects they have done in a long long time. He tells me that the code the bloomberg platform is written in is so archaic, that he wants to punch people over there, and this guy is 24 years old! When a 24 year old walks into a multi billion dollar company, takes over the code writing for their main project, and says they have issues, they have issues. In some ways I see Bloomberg in the same light as the infrastructure of the United States, it's going to be hard to change because it's already there and built out. Younger less developed countries (companies) will have a far easier time building out their infrastructure (platforms) in today's technology because they don't have existing ones to work around and through. IBM gets this better than anyone else, innovate or die, even if you have to cut off arms and legs along the way, the US obviously doesn't get it, I'm not sure if Bloomberg does, but based on what my friend says, it doesn't look good.
ShortBus
· 2 months ago
When you listen to 24 year old coders, that attitude is exactly what you get. I used to be 24 and walk into organizations and do and say the same thing. Believe me, the code lives and morphs and changes and survives. It does not matter one bit what is behind the scenes, as long as it works in front where the users are. I have made this same mistake many times over in the past.
hardaway
· 2 months ago
Exactly. Do you know how old the code is that runs the banks? It's all green screen on the back end, but it doesn't matter because they have the data, and if they can modernize the UI, they will be fine.
howardlindzon
· 2 months ago
You should see stocktwits code....oy :)
ivanhoff
· 2 months ago
Bloomberg doesn't want to be the Ford or the Hyundai or the public transport in the business news business and be accessible to the average Joe. They want to be the Mercedes and they are immensely profitable from it. It is not a spoon for every mouth, but this is why there are people willing to pay up. If Bloomberg wanted to widen their business audience, they would have acquired an established company in this area and keep its name. Something like Business week. Last time I checked, they already owned it.
howardlindzon
· 2 months ago
Indeed
Chris Selland
· 2 months ago
Baker's been sniffing too much Cluetrain
syalam
· 2 months ago
stocktwits desktop is what bloomberg 2.0 should be - long realtime web
hardaway
· 2 months ago
Bloomberg is a multi media company that sells financial information, not a desktop terminal provider (anymore). I listen to their podcasts, read their stuff online, and am devoted to their high quality information. And yes, I'd pay for it like I pay for the WSJ. The terminal business might be dead on the hardware side, but on the content side I am sure they will do well.
howardlindzon
· 2 months ago
Yeeppp
bweiss
· 2 months ago
I think a quick review of Bloomberg's strategies over the years might further prove their general shrewdness and ability to adapt to the web and new business realities around them.
Bloomberg is the best, and have been since their foundation, primarily due to the ineptitude of Reuters and Thomson, who are now married in what can only be described as a marriage of incompetence. When comparing Bloomberg to say the Reuters 3000Xtra, one can immediately see a difference in UI, experience, and available content. Bloomberg has always been a one-product house, whereas Reuters/Thomson have always tried to build tools for every individual player. As a result, you can always find what you want on Bloomberg (and it always seems to be in the right place), whereas competitor offerings are just not very good in comparison.
The decision to include proprietary messaging in the 90s was brilliant, coupled with a very strong focus on supporting the buy-side, created a killer app for all serious players - if you wanted to talk with the buy-side, you needed a Bloomberg.
The decision to stay in terminals until the last minute was a conscious and shrewd move. Reuters and Thomson had 'hosted offerings' earlier, but they were slow, and caused traders to go nuts.
When consultants came into the big banks and suggested Bloomberg sharing, particularly outside trading, they met Bloomberg's next brilliant move - Bloomberg Anywhere, and the subsequent fingerprint scanner. This ensured that only one user could use the 'terminal' at one time, even if it was a 'hosted terminal' accessible via the web.
All in all, it takes a ton of genius and ingenuity to keep users paying upwards of $1600 per month per user, when a comparable tool can be gotten for roughly half (remember, Market Data was the #2 cost center outside of salaries for large investment houses).
Bloomberg definitely gets the web, and like Craigslist and other companies generating ridiculous revenues via the web while baffling 'web analysts', they know how to grow and retain customers (and their subsequent market leadership) on the web.
Will Bloomberg control in the future? Depends on their leadership and ability to sustain this great story. I wouldn't be the one betting against them either, though.
howardlindzon
· 2 months ago
so how does someone take market share...
and I agree that reuters is a black hole. awful place to try and do business.
bweiss
· 2 months ago
interesting question? I think you take market share by building a better product for the buy-side, something cheaper and easier to use. The key is building a tool based on open architecture communication, analytics, a trading component (FIX messaging) and a good mix of feeds (news and mkt data).
Imagine the following environment:
Stocktwits Desktop (with private messaging) alongside a table of tickers with real-time feeds (click them to get the charts, options chains, etc), alongside a constantly updating Google News Feed (or a series of customizable 'search term' feeds), with a few tabs offering connection to analytics tools and deeper data (most of which is available free online these days, including filings). Subsequently, like Bloomberg, you can build a desktop widget-like environment, like Launchpad, and an option to directly link market data to spreadsheets (probably via Phatpipe or equivalent).
The killer price for such a product would be around the range of the Reuters 3000Xtra, or slightly below, built on an open API, so that others could build apps on top of the basic offering. This would probably hurt Bloomberg, since their closed architecture frustrates many power users (although their customer service is quite good about sharing new ideas with development teams to add necessary new features in a timely manner)...
What do you think? Wanna take on Bloomberg?
howardlindzon
· 2 months ago
Almost there. Let's chat next week and I can fill you in.
bweiss
· 2 months ago
Would love to
howardlindzon
· 2 months ago
Howard at lindzon dot com
gl
· 2 months ago
yes, this sounds very good. Problem is barriers to entry. You have to partner with a big player in the industry to flex your muscles otherwise a single developer sitting Mumbai or Buenos Aires could develop the same offering and cut off your knees on price.
bweiss
· 2 months ago
I don't disagree with you entirely - you will need to leverage existing data feeds, and existing infrastructure on some level. However, if you can build an easy to use UI and leverage the existing brand name of Stocktwits, you might be able to build enough of a network effect around the communication tool to have a differentiator. Remember - a good portion of the Bloomberg phenomenon is the comfort experienced ppl have with the tool (its a skill that most wall st types consider a resume writer). If you can get these guys and/or their younger counterparts to get excited by a particular open tool, its hard to get them to switch (trust me - back in the heyday of the late 90's, bankers and traders would have 'Bloomberg Terminal Access' written into their employment contracts).
Additionally, it takes credibility to get into Wall St firms, which is not likely to come easily to random programmer teams... Can the Stocktwits guys do it? Maybe.
All Comments
Bloomberg is the best, and have been since their foundation, primarily due to the ineptitude of Reuters and Thomson, who are now married in what can only be described as a marriage of incompetence. When comparing Bloomberg to say the Reuters 3000Xtra, one can immediately see a difference in UI, experience, and available content. Bloomberg has always been a one-product house, whereas Reuters/Thomson have always tried to build tools for every individual player. As a result, you can always find what you want on Bloomberg (and it always seems to be in the right place), whereas competitor offerings are just not very good in comparison.
The decision to include proprietary messaging in the 90s was brilliant, coupled with a very strong focus on supporting the buy-side, created a killer app for all serious players - if you wanted to talk with the buy-side, you needed a Bloomberg.
The decision to stay in terminals until the last minute was a conscious and shrewd move. Reuters and Thomson had 'hosted offerings' earlier, but they were slow, and caused traders to go nuts.
When consultants came into the big banks and suggested Bloomberg sharing, particularly outside trading, they met Bloomberg's next brilliant move - Bloomberg Anywhere, and the subsequent fingerprint scanner. This ensured that only one user could use the 'terminal' at one time, even if it was a 'hosted terminal' accessible via the web.
All in all, it takes a ton of genius and ingenuity to keep users paying upwards of $1600 per month per user, when a comparable tool can be gotten for roughly half (remember, Market Data was the #2 cost center outside of salaries for large investment houses).
Bloomberg definitely gets the web, and like Craigslist and other companies generating ridiculous revenues via the web while baffling 'web analysts', they know how to grow and retain customers (and their subsequent market leadership) on the web.
Will Bloomberg control in the future? Depends on their leadership and ability to sustain this great story. I wouldn't be the one betting against them either, though.
and I agree that reuters is a black hole. awful place to try and do
business.
Imagine the following environment:
Stocktwits Desktop (with private messaging) alongside a table of tickers with real-time feeds (click them to get the charts, options chains, etc), alongside a constantly updating Google News Feed (or a series of customizable 'search term' feeds), with a few tabs offering connection to analytics tools and deeper data (most of which is available free online these days, including filings). Subsequently, like Bloomberg, you can build a desktop widget-like environment, like Launchpad, and an option to directly link market data to spreadsheets (probably via Phatpipe or equivalent).
The killer price for such a product would be around the range of the Reuters 3000Xtra, or slightly below, built on an open API, so that others could build apps on top of the basic offering. This would probably hurt Bloomberg, since their closed architecture frustrates many power users (although their customer service is quite good about sharing new ideas with development teams to add necessary new features in a timely manner)...
What do you think? Wanna take on Bloomberg?
Additionally, it takes credibility to get into Wall St firms, which is not likely to come easily to random programmer teams... Can the Stocktwits guys do it? Maybe.