myronbolitar

What makes you think Kobe and LeBron aren't a-holes?

Also, I've thought for years that LeBron not being more of an a-hole is why he doesn't win more often. He loves to win. Jordan hated to lose. That's the difference.

PS - Tracy McGrady's scoring didn't dip from 32 to 22 overnight, and when it did dip, it had more to do with his lack of conditioning and his body breaking down than it did with any rule changes.

He's the greatest basketball player ever. He's the most competitive athlete I know of. He's an athletic genius.

Similar to the stories of Steve Jobs berating colleagues, employees, rivals, etc. there are anecdotes about Jordan doing the same in his field.

He's not known as the Greatest Human Of All Time...he's the Greatest Basketball Player Of All Time.

Sounds about right. I gave it a try because of their Beatles catalogue, but went back to Spotify after a few sessions.

I think we'll see more battles in the coming years between Apple and Spotify over exclusive rights for the music of artists that aren't on either service.

Sidenote: I'm curious how iTunes Radio has done since they released it. I haven't heard from anyone who prefers that over Pandora or Spotify's offering. It'd be a large acquisition by their (or anyone's) standards, and I know I'm not saying anything revolutionary here, but there have to be discussions that have happened/will continue to happen about Apple buying Spotify.

OP here - I'm going to respond to everyone who drops me an email at adam [at] ypprojects.com or comments in here. If you comment in here, though, please leave your email address.

I graduated high school with a kid whose last name was Null. It would occasionally cause issues with the school's computers. He learned to use it to his advantage.

I think a bunch of things that people often classify as "luck" should really be looked at as timing issues.

Part of building a business is understanding market conditions and competition. I get that things can come completely out of left field, but there are different degrees to which you can monitor competition and how receptive people will be to your product or service. It's dangerous (and potentially fatal) to be head down building your product and ignoring looming threats.

There are two sides to this.

I understand Facebook's strategy trying to stay on top of the mobile social game and remaining relevant to young users.

While I value Snapchat from Facebook's perspective, I think Snapchat itself is now in a tough spot. They're going to raise money at a valuation higher than $3b, and soon enough, the pressure will be on to start generating revenue. It's funny - people give social apps like Snapchat a hard time about not making any money, but if they tried to monetize right now, they'd look like idiots for thinking they're worth $5b or whatever, because the revenue would be peanuts in comparison. They're better off literally not making anything for the time being.

There's no way they'll ever get $3b out of that business without selling out. Maybe they think FB or someone else will be back with a better offer. I'm not sure that gamble was worth the risk.

Not that they wouldn't have ruined it, but Google must be kicking themselves for not trying more aggressively to buy Twitter years ago.