https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/08/10/soundcloud-investors-24-hours/
#2716 Posted Fri 11 Aug, 2017 9:25 pm
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/08/10/soundcloud-investors-24-hours/
Originally posted by Astronut on Fri 11 Aug, 2017
That is insane! Lee and I always talk about SoundCloud, and question where they get the funds from to maintain and host millions of tracks.
"Over its multi-year history, SoundCloud has burned through more than $230 million. That doesn’t even include an additional $70 million in loans, undoubtedly accruing massive interest."
They burned through 230 million dollars!?!? On what? Salaries, perhaps?
I wonder what will happen to all the musicians on the site and their music. And if they paid for a premium membership, will they get reimbursed? Crazy!
"Over its multi-year history, SoundCloud has burned through more than $230 million. That doesn’t even include an additional $70 million in loans, undoubtedly accruing massive interest."
They burned through 230 million dollars!?!? On what? Salaries, perhaps?
I wonder what will happen to all the musicians on the site and their music. And if they paid for a premium membership, will they get reimbursed? Crazy!
#2717 Posted Fri 11 Aug, 2017 9:57 pm
No worries, here you go, just take another $170,000,000 !!!
#2718 Posted Sat 12 Aug, 2017 2:28 am
I am amazed they lasted this long. I pulled my music from SC when they killed the "groups" feature. :-(
#2723 Posted Sat 12 Aug, 2017 3:47 pm
I know just enough to post my songs there. I never understood how it was a collaboration site. From what I read before the comments there got too crude to care, some people do see it as that.
#2725 Posted Sat 12 Aug, 2017 4:50 pm
Here is the follow-up. It says a $170 million dollar emergency fund has given them a few more months.
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/08/11/soundcloud-emergency-funding-ceo/
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/08/11/soundcloud-emergency-funding-ceo/
#2736 Posted Sun 13 Aug, 2017 9:50 pm
"Indeed, as SoundCloud burned, Ljung has been blasted for wasting money and partying like a rock star. That included lavish offices, outrageous perks and scant strategies for monetization."
I had a feeling that was the case! Unreal. :/
I had a feeling that was the case! Unreal. :/
#2737 Posted Sun 13 Aug, 2017 11:34 pm
If anyone wants to give ProCollabs $170 million.. I'm all ears.. Think we can make it last a bit longer than a couple of months :)
#2738 Posted Mon 14 Aug, 2017 5:16 am
I don't think the site provides anything to anyone that can't be provided elsewhere. I always thought it was useless and without direction. I could never understand how they thought they would make money. Like most of us here it was a good place to keep your stuff. It was a pretty typical startup with an 80's mentality. The thought process was to build this thing and figure out how to monetize it later. At least that's how I perceived it.
#2740 Posted Mon 14 Aug, 2017 10:01 am
I don't think the site provides anything to anyone that can't be provided elsewhere. I always thought it was useless and without direction. I could never understand how they thought they would make money. Like most of us here it was a good place to keep your stuff. It was a pretty typical startup with an 80's mentality. The thought process was to build this thing and figure out how to monetize it later. At least that's how I perceived it.
Originally posted by V1CTOR on Mon 14 Aug, 2017
Completely agree, and to know that so much money was invested & now gone, is a real shame!
#2741 Posted Mon 14 Aug, 2017 10:23 am
