If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slashdot)   Now that Snapchat's turned down $3 billion, *every* developer with a tap-to-fart app could be holding out for more cash, only to see their dreams crash and burn   (slashdot.org) divider line 36
    More: Interesting, Snapchat, Instagram, startup company, venture funding  
•       •       •

1330 clicks; posted to Geek » on 18 Nov 2013 at 5:51 PM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



36 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-18 05:59:17 PM
FTFA:Snapchat earns no revenue...

Stopped-Reading-There.PNG
 
2013-11-18 06:06:27 PM
But they have users!
Who cares if you can monetize, they have users!
 
2013-11-18 06:11:33 PM
He holding out for FB money or what?
 
2013-11-18 06:15:36 PM
God, I can only hope. I'd love to the the current internet "business" model implode and die.
 
2013-11-18 06:22:31 PM
What confuses me is the fact that there's been plenty of stories of flavor-of-the-week tech companies holding out for more cash then later on asking for a six pack and bus money after it is realized the emperor really DOESN'T have any clothes...so, in this case, WTF?
 
2013-11-18 06:27:32 PM
What I find strange is that Facebook could BUILD Snapchat in a weekend!  How many snapchat users aren't either a current or a former disillusioned Facebook user anyway, so they can't be buying them for the users.  Just like they could have built Instagram in a week.

I am beginning to question Mark's genius.
 
2013-11-18 06:27:54 PM
Maybe someone will buy their tears after they realize the huge mistake they just made.
 
2013-11-18 06:31:50 PM
And it was a Chinese firm which also offered this 23 yr old wunderkidnick $4 Billion dollaros... Dr. Teeth would be so happy!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nrSfC76lLI
 
2013-11-18 06:41:02 PM

haemaker: Just like they could have built Instagram in a week.


I never got instagram anyways. Ok so you have this app that adds filters to your pictures. That's fine enough as it goes. But then you have this huge backend where people upload their photos. Oh sure people with Instagram can go around looking at other people's pictures, but what actually happened? People were uploading to instagram and then posting links on Facebook and Twitter. Would be a lot easier to just apply the filter and let people upload the picture to wherever they want. Also a lot cheaper.
 
2013-11-18 06:52:17 PM

WhyteRaven74: haemaker: Just like they could have built Instagram in a week.

I never got instagram anyways. Ok so you have this app that adds filters to your pictures. That's fine enough as it goes. But then you have this huge backend where people upload their photos. Oh sure people with Instagram can go around looking at other people's pictures, but what actually happened? People were uploading to instagram and then posting links on Facebook and Twitter. Would be a lot easier to just apply the filter and let people upload the picture to wherever they want. Also a lot cheaper.


Depends on how nefarious you are, if you collect the location data, time and date, analyze the pics there is a tremendous amount of personal data that can be gleaned and sold.  You are limited if you don't have the user upload the picture.

The problem I have is, why did Facebook value them?  Mark could have just built it, literally, in a week.
 
2013-11-18 07:11:10 PM
Facebook needs to add the feature for posts to auto delete after a fixed amount of time.  Set all new pictures and posts  to delete within 12 hours before going drinking.  Keep people from getting in too much trouble for stupidity.
 
2013-11-18 07:43:41 PM

If someone offers you $3 billion for a piece of garbage app, you say yes!


www.shadowlocked.com

 
2013-11-18 07:57:01 PM
I'm not rooting for these guys' failure or anything, but I can't help but suspect at least one of them is dead in a gutter in 10 years.  The only reason to ever turn down $3 billion is because you have someone else offering you $4 billion.
 
2013-11-18 08:06:12 PM

WhyteRaven74: haemaker: Just like they could have built Instagram in a week.

I never got instagram anyways. Ok so you have this app that adds filters to your pictures. That's fine enough as it goes. But then you have this huge backend where people upload their photos. Oh sure people with Instagram can go around looking at other people's pictures, but what actually happened? People were uploading to instagram and then posting links on Facebook and Twitter. Would be a lot easier to just apply the filter and let people upload the picture to wherever they want. Also a lot cheaper.


If I host the image and check the Referrer-ID, I can accumulate data about who else clicked it, from which social network, etc. I can aggregate all that data to develop a social graph of who's popular, and I can build a graph outside of FB and TWTR's control. I can then sell that data to advertisers. If I just let people upload the photos wherever they want, someone else gets all that monetizable big data.

As we all know, the value of these services isn't to the users; the users are the product. The "value" these businesses provide is in creating something faddish but potentially-monetizable, over which existing cash-flush firms can get into bidding wars. If people start using Instagram, then FB and YHOO and GOOG will be in a bidding war for it, simply so as to prevent their competitors from getting their hands on the data.

Instagram was a bit of a special case: it can be argued that Zuckerberg paid an enormous premium for it because establishing one's company as being able to afford a billion dollars for Instagram on (April 12, 2012), implied an even more bubbilicious valuation for FB's IPO (May 18, 2012). By fueling interest in FB immediately before its IPO, it arguably worked, enabling Zuckerberg to get a higher price for the IPO at precisely the right time. (An accidental beneficiary of the bidding war for photo apps may was Tumblr, which was bought by YHOO for $1.1B on May 20, 2012.)
 
2013-11-18 08:07:20 PM
I dint understand the popularity of Snapchat. Are there THAT many Anthony Wieners out there?
 
2013-11-18 09:18:04 PM

haemaker: The problem I have is, why did Facebook value them?  Mark could have just built it, literally, in a week.


My guess is that he was buying the name/fad.  Sure, FB could have made an Instagram clone in days, but it would be about as successful as Google+.  Everyone was using Instagram for uploading their cell phone pics, and it was probably easier to just buy them and get the huge user base immediately rather than build a competitor and struggle to gain market share (and by the time they HAD gained any market share, the fad would be over and kids would have other fun apps to play with).
 
2013-11-18 10:06:16 PM

Mad_Radhu: I dint understand the popularity of Snapchat. Are there THAT many Anthony Wieners out there?


Yeah, this is a cheating man's dream. I wonder how many of them cheat with the teen girls that love the site?
 
2013-11-18 10:45:39 PM
Im usually pretty good at finding value but I just cant get my head around snapchat. Outside of sexting it's just not useful.

I dont know what fb saw in it except unlimited free amateur porn I suppose. Heh maybe mark z's ex was a user or something.
 
2013-11-18 11:30:10 PM
We are so going to crash hard when this bubble bursts.
 
2013-11-18 11:31:53 PM
If anyone offers you 3B for a market valuation of 0, you take it.

Dumbassez
 
2013-11-18 11:54:25 PM

HMS_Blinkin: get the huge user base immediately


thing is, how many instagram people didn't also have facebook? 5? 10?
 
2013-11-18 11:58:06 PM

HMS_Blinkin: haemaker: The problem I have is, why did Facebook value them?  Mark could have just built it, literally, in a week.

My guess is that he was buying the name/fad.  Sure, FB could have made an Instagram clone in days, but it would be about as successful as Google+.  Everyone was using Instagram for uploading their cell phone pics, and it was probably easier to just buy them and get the huge user base immediately rather than build a competitor and struggle to gain market share (and by the time they HAD gained any market share, the fad would be over and kids would have other fun apps to play with).


I think the point was to try and round up the kids and bring them back to facebook, which is bleeding people in the 16-24 demographic faster than a stuck pig with high blood pressure.

Farcebook is passe.  The kids have moved on because there's too much permanency, there's no privacy and oh yeah it's where the "old people" (anyone over 25) hang out.
 
2013-11-19 01:01:05 AM

haemaker: What I find strange is that Facebook could BUILD Snapchat in a weekend!  How many snapchat users aren't either a current or a former disillusioned Facebook user anyway, so they can't be buying them for the users.  Just like they could have built Instagram in a week.

I am beginning to question Mark's genius.


Snapchat has the patent, that's what they really want.
 
2013-11-19 01:18:12 AM

technofiend: which is bleeding people in the 16-24 demographic faster than a stuck pig with high blood pressure.


Thing is, I'm not really sure it is. Also the second someone thinks teens will have X only or Y only, you've totally lost them.
 
2013-11-19 02:02:44 AM
Snapchat is a joke. If you really believe you can enforce that other people's devices are going to delete that data I have a bridge to sell you.
 
2013-11-19 02:30:51 AM

WayToBlue: Snapchat is a joke. If you really believe you can enforce that other people's devices are going to delete that data I have a bridge to sell you.


The real punchline of the joke is that "mv foo.jpg foo.jpg.nomedia" qualifies as "erase" in appspeak, but hey, for three billion dollars, I'd be delighted to pretend otherwise.
 
2013-11-19 06:28:01 AM
Idiots.
 
2013-11-19 06:41:24 AM
If someone offered me $3bn for an app like that that made no money, I would literally have to control myself from saying "really, are you farking crazy?".

I know a guy who sold his bill printing business for a few million. He was starting to get nervous as he could see e-billing was going to wipe him out. But he still tried to negotiate slightly higher because he didn't want someone wondering why he wasn't. It's now about a quarter of its previous size.

WayToBlue: Snapchat is a joke. If you really believe you can enforce that other people's devices are going to delete that data I have a bridge to sell you.


1. Download the app
2. Decompile the byte code
3. Work out how it send/receives data.

It's like those people who try to stop me grabbing images with javascript on their website. Good luck getting past the Chrome DOM inspector.
 
rpm
2013-11-19 08:57:41 AM

BHShaman: If anyone offers you 3B for a market valuation of 0, you take it.

Dumbassez


Except their market valuation isn't zero. It was $800M in June, and some investors wanted to get in at a valuation of $4B recently.
 
2013-11-19 09:25:50 AM
This type of shiat drives me crazy. The worst result of these type of over valuations are the people it creates.

CSB:In 2007 I got hired by a guy who made $300 Million in 2001 when he sold his ridiculously over-valued tech company. He cashed out right before the market crashed.

His new gig was acting as an angel investor, buying into start-ups and I would manage the technology at all of them. Every time I met with him he would advise me on what he thought was the best way to do things. He'd wink, act smug, and tell me to stick with him and I'd make a fortune.

It was torturous since it was clear he had NO idea what he was doing. He would buy up tons of domain names that he thought "sounded cool" and maybe people would come looking to buy them from him. They were completely made-up words like "Prestondus.com" or whatever. He did own one very high-profile domain name and when people would offer to buy it for $10k his counter offer was always $1MM. One of his other favorite investments (not one of his companies) was "Chumby." He thought it was going to "revolutionize the way people thought of the alarm clock." Not one of his start-ups made it, of course.

The market crashed in 2008 and by then he had lost 90% of his $300mm fortune and was selling his houses and his sports car collection. I eventually got out from that mess and moved on.

Snapchat is kinda clever. I mean, at least these guys realized it could be a thing and get it out there first. But it is not $3 Billion clever. And turning down that type of money tells me everything I need to know about them. They're too self-important and egotistical to understand they are simply in the right place at the right time and should get what they can.
 
2013-11-19 10:18:11 AM

rpm: Except their market valuation isn't zero. It was $800M in June, and some investors wanted to get in at a valuation of $4B recently.


True, but it's really got no fundamentals. It's not going to accumulate $4bn of profit any time soon. This is a bubble, a fad, and one whose value will pass, perhaps very quickly. It could go from $4bn to $4m overnight. Take the money and run.
 
2013-11-19 11:14:36 AM

haemaker: What I find strange is that Facebook could BUILD Snapchat in a weekend!  How many snapchat users aren't either a current or a former disillusioned Facebook user anyway, so they can't be buying them for the users.  Just like they could have built Instagram in a week.

I am beginning to question Mark's genius.


It's not about the tech it's about momentum and market share. Snapchat has a user base introducing an alternative would just dilute the market. It's better to just buy out the competition if you have cash on hand.
 
2013-11-19 02:30:57 PM
They may be dumb, but they aren't quite Groupon dumb.
 
2013-11-19 08:37:57 PM
Tap-to-fart...hey, that gives me an idea.

BRB.
 
2013-11-19 09:54:36 PM
I had no idea that the market value of sexting was greater than $0.

Looks like I need better math skills. Could my bottled farts be marketable?
 
2013-11-20 03:22:03 AM

Hoban Washburne: I'm not rooting for these guys' failure or anything, but I can't help but suspect at least one of them is dead in a gutter in 10 years.  The only reason to ever turn down $3 billion is because you have someone else offering you $4 billion.


Or you believe that you ARE the next facebook.  Judging from the age of their demographic, they might be


Still, you take it.
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report