News Corp is Selling MySpace for $100 Million
socialtimes.com
socialtimes.com
Sure they bought the thing for $580m and now selling it for $100m, but they had many many good years of $750m-$1bn revenue (ok we don't know what profit looked like given Fox Interactive is a private company but I'm sure it was strong).
It also put skin in the game for News Corp that was otherwise going to miss out on an entire generation of innovation.
As someone who briefly worked for MySpace during the glory years, I'm not weeping any tears for Rupert.
Take a look at this site: http://www.bnet.com/blog/advertising-business/news-corp-may-... It lists the (lack of) profitability of News Corp's "Other" category over the years (of which MySpace is a large part).
Here is my own research from doing Google searches of when MySpace is mentioned in News Corp conference calls for quarterly reports:
2006: http://markpincus.typepad.com/markpincus/2006/04/myspace_rev...
2007: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/news-corp-myspace-on-track-to-...
2008: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/fox-interactive-turns-annual-p...
2009: ???
2010Q1, 2011Q1: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2372103,00.asp
From these links, it seems like MySpace had total revenues of only $200 million in 2006 (not sure of the profit), netted "modest" profit in fiscal 2007 on $500 million and $10 million on $550 million revenue in fiscal 2008. Also, for at least two quarters over the past three years, MySpace has lost $100-$150 million (and likely lost similar amounts in at least some other quarters during this time).
In terms of what we can talk about publicly, Google had a search deal with MySpace that was worth $900m over 3 years. Your quoted numbers combined over the three years the contract was in effect barely reflect that. And the Google deal was just for remnant advertising - MySpace made a solid income selling display advertising, 'take over homepages' (worth $$$), etc.
I don't know anything beyond the sources I listed in this post and have no idea if the quoted information is correct or not. (I could perhaps try to find transcriptions from the actual calls, but I'm not going to do that.)
But just so we're on the page (you said the numbers barely reflect the $900 million), the revenue numbers I listed were for fiscal 2006-2008 while the contract was for fiscal 2007-2009 so looking at fiscal 2008 and 2009, this data suggests that Google provided only around 60% of their revenue during this time. I wouldn't call that 'barely', although it still might not properly reflect their revenue from other sources.
A better and way more interesting question is if you had the $100mm to buy it what would you do with it? I've created an Ask HN if anyone is interested in a more thorough discussion. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2495933
I can't help but draw a parallel with what is currently happening in the tablet market. There was a quote posted on daring fireball yesterday from Jim Dalrymple: "There is no compelling argument that anyone can give that says that comparing an operating system to a hardware device makes sense. None."
I think he's nailed it, we've entered a phase of computing where software counts for more of the value of the device or service.
"You live on the 7th floor of Terry and like foo video games, I live on the 9th!"
Its usefulness declined after that first year.
With Google's recent level of seriousness directed toward social, I sincerely doubt they are looking to acquire the central parts of their upcoming endeavor.