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.

(The Wire)   Spurned in its attempt to throw $3 billion at the makers of Snapchat, Facebook suddenly realizes "Oh yeah, we're a tech company too, and it's insanely easy to build an exact copy of that app and slap our name on the side"   (thewire.com) divider line 45
    More: Obvious, Snapchat, Facebook, slingshots, mobile apps, versions  
•       •       •

1876 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 May 2014 at 2:49 PM (9 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



45 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-05-19 01:54:28 PM
Nucleus?
 
2014-05-19 02:32:24 PM
Because that approach has worked out so well for Google+?
 
2014-05-19 02:54:16 PM
Sanpchat?
 
2014-05-19 02:54:30 PM
It's pretty crazy that in the space of about three years, Facebook has gone from being the new kid on the block to a stodgy old company that's not cool anymore. But this may become the new cycle since social media adoption is driven by micro-generations of high school/college-aged cohort groups. If you're fresh in 2014, you'll be old news when the next class of incoming freshmen arrives in 2018.

That's the problem with bubbles. They rapidly expand, and then they burst.
 
2014-05-19 02:54:38 PM
I wonder if those snapchat folks regret their decision not to sell.   3 billion is a lot of money, particuarly if its cash, not stock options.
 
2014-05-19 02:55:07 PM
 its attempt to throw $3 billion at the makers of Sanpchat, Facebook Fcaebook suddenly realizes...

FTFS.
 
2014-05-19 02:55:42 PM
And I have no idea where the first three words of my post went.
 
2014-05-19 03:01:02 PM

Dragonflew: And I have no idea where the first three words of my post went.


Zuckerturd banned them as being child porn aka he's rubbing one one to those words right now
 
2014-05-19 03:10:43 PM
it is seplling, not hard; i code os good my apps have side
 
2014-05-19 03:12:20 PM

T.rex: I wonder if those snapchat folks regret their decision not to sell.   3 billion is a lot of money, particuarly if its cash, not stock options.


If I was Snapchat, I would have sold out for $3 bills in a heartbeat. I can only assume that Snapchat thinks they'll be worth more than $3 billion in the future...which I think is a fairly long shot for a company with an easily duplicated technology, no revenue model, and no easy way to shoehorn one in without hemorrhaging users.

I'm not a Snapchat user, but if their claim about not storing messages is accurate, that means they can't mine for info and sell it like Facebook or Twitter does, and randomly texting you ads would probably cause users to leave in droves. Maybe Snapchat thinks it can do some sort of subscription model?
 
2014-05-19 03:12:49 PM
The idea of vanishing messages appeals to the sort of people not bright enough there's no such thing.
 
2014-05-19 03:16:39 PM

wildcardjack: The idea of vanishing messages appeals to the sort of people not bright enough there's no such thing.


I think a couple of your words vanished. That's OK though, a Fark admin likely has a secret stash.
 
2014-05-19 03:17:18 PM

qorkfiend: I can only assume that Snapchat thinks they'll be worth more than $3 billion in the future...which I think is a fairly long shot for a company with an easily duplicated technology, no revenue model, and no easy way to shoehorn one in without hemorrhaging users.


Which was said about twitter but even that property is pulling $600 million in revenue every year.

/its about building a community of users which they've appeared to have done
//which google has failed to do with google+
 
2014-05-19 03:17:35 PM
apparently people really enjoy seeing dicks
 
2014-05-19 03:26:10 PM
Dude should have taken the $4 billion from the Chinese! Now that's some pocket money!
 
2014-05-19 03:26:11 PM

Dragonflew: And I have no idea where the first three words of my post went.


They got eated by teh sanpchat.
 
2014-05-19 03:27:21 PM

Fonaibung: Sanpchat?


Gooby pls
 
2014-05-19 03:37:04 PM

Fonaibung: Sanpchat?


It's the latest messaging app from Sorny.
 
2014-05-19 03:50:11 PM

qorkfiend: T.rex: I wonder if those snapchat folks regret their decision not to sell.   3 billion is a lot of money, particuarly if its cash, not stock options.

If I was Snapchat, I would have sold out for $3 bills in a heartbeat. I can only assume that Snapchat thinks they'll be worth more than $3 billion in the future...which I think is a fairly long shot for a company with an easily duplicated technology, no revenue model, and no easy way to shoehorn one in without hemorrhaging users.

I'm not a Snapchat user, but if their claim about not storing messages is accurate, that means they can't mine for info and sell it like Facebook or Twitter does, and randomly texting you ads would probably cause users to leave in droves. Maybe Snapchat thinks it can do some sort of subscription model?


I always assumed that a lot of these startups went like this:-

1. Kid develops alpha version. Hosts on crappy server
2. VC comes along, offers money so he can sell it to someone for more.
3. Bigger VC offers to buy a chunk of it. VC from 2 sells half/most of his share.

etc

oontil a few steps down the road when all the VCs have sold a big enough chunk to a big company that then wonders what they are going to do with it.

The "$3bn for your company with no profits" is basically the top of that pile. You sell up and do something else. Maybe you find a new technology to develop. Maybe you just buy a big yacht and get some trophy girlfriends. At best, these companies like Snapchat and Instagram are worth a few million (for the technology).
 
2014-05-19 04:50:58 PM

chrylis: Fonaibung: Sanpchat?

It's the latest messaging app from Sorny.


I'm waiting for the competing version from Magnetbox.

foodcourtlunch.com

/best resolution I could find in under 1 minute...
 
2014-05-19 04:53:22 PM

gingerjet: qorkfiend: I can only assume that Snapchat thinks they'll be worth more than $3 billion in the future...which I think is a fairly long shot for a company with an easily duplicated technology, no revenue model, and no easy way to shoehorn one in without hemorrhaging users.

Which was said about twitter but even that property is pulling $600 million in revenue every year.

/its about building a community of users which they've appeared to have done
//which google has failed to do with google+


Twitter's revenue model was always pretty clear, especially once Facebook proved that mining your users and selling targeted ads worked, and worked well. Snapchat doesn't store user-generated info, so they can't mine it. They've certainly got the community of users, but it's not the size of the community I'm looking at. I think Snapchat's options for a revenue model are few, and all of them carry the potential to significantly damage the community.

G+ is an...odd duck. It wasn't a startup, so it never really needed to worry about building a customer base (it had one already) or raising/earning money. On the other hand, it clearly failed at engaging its customer base...but I'm not sure it was ever intended to be a revenue-producing property. In any case, the transition from social platform to single sign-on across the Google universe seems to be working out.
 
2014-05-19 04:56:19 PM
Dragonflew Dergen-fu: its attempt to throw $3 billion at the makers of Sanpchat Serncherp, Facebook Fcaebook FecesBank suddenly realizes...

FTFS.
 
2014-05-19 05:00:14 PM
Oh, SANP!!
 
2014-05-19 05:12:55 PM

qorkfiend: gingerjet: qorkfiend: I can only assume that Snapchat thinks they'll be worth more than $3 billion in the future...which I think is a fairly long shot for a company with an easily duplicated technology, no revenue model, and no easy way to shoehorn one in without hemorrhaging users.

Which was said about twitter but even that property is pulling $600 million in revenue every year.

/its about building a community of users which they've appeared to have done
//which google has failed to do with google+

Twitter's revenue model was always pretty clear, especially once Facebook proved that mining your users and selling targeted ads worked, and worked well. Snapchat doesn't store user-generated info, so they can't mine it. They've certainly got the community of users, but it's not the size of the community I'm looking at. I think Snapchat's options for a revenue model are few, and all of them carry the potential to significantly damage the community.

G+ is an...odd duck. It wasn't a startup, so it never really needed to worry about building a customer base (it had one already) or raising/earning money. On the other hand, it clearly failed at engaging its customer base...but I'm not sure it was ever intended to be a revenue-producing property. In any case, the transition from social platform to single sign-on across the Google universe seems to be working out.


Snapchat is mining just as much as everyone else   http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/05/08/snapchat - agrees-to-settle-ftc-charges-that-it-deceived-users/

They just pretend not to do it.

/This is my favorite snapchat article though http://news.yahoo.com/british-man-fined-800-drawing-dicks-snapchat-pi c ture-202944535.html
 
2014-05-19 05:16:16 PM

farkeruk: qorkfiend: T.rex: I wonder if those snapchat folks regret their decision not to sell.   3 billion is a lot of money, particuarly if its cash, not stock options.

If I was Snapchat, I would have sold out for $3 bills in a heartbeat. I can only assume that Snapchat thinks they'll be worth more than $3 billion in the future...which I think is a fairly long shot for a company with an easily duplicated technology, no revenue model, and no easy way to shoehorn one in without hemorrhaging users.

I'm not a Snapchat user, but if their claim about not storing messages is accurate, that means they can't mine for info and sell it like Facebook or Twitter does, and randomly texting you ads would probably cause users to leave in droves. Maybe Snapchat thinks it can do some sort of subscription model?

I always assumed that a lot of these startups went like this:-

1. Kid develops alpha version. Hosts on crappy server
2. VC comes along, offers money so he can sell it to someone for more.
3. Bigger VC offers to buy a chunk of it. VC from 2 sells half/most of his share.

etc

oontil a few steps down the road when all the VCs have sold a big enough chunk to a big company that then wonders what they are going to do with it.

The "$3bn for your company with no profits" is basically the top of that pile. You sell up and do something else. Maybe you find a new technology to develop. Maybe you just buy a big yacht and get some trophy girlfriends. At best, these companies like Snapchat and Instagram are worth a few million (for the technology).


Oontil????
 
2014-05-19 05:18:40 PM
Smeggy Smurf

Dragonflew: And I have no idea where the first three words of my post went.


Zuckerturd banned them as being child porn aka he's rubbing one one to those words right now


So he is going to build his own child porn app, with hookers and blackjack?
 
2014-05-19 05:27:02 PM

Nadie_AZ: Nucleus?


That reminds me of the time I developed Aviato.
 
2014-05-19 05:50:32 PM

qorkfiend: T.rex: I wonder if those snapchat folks regret their decision not to sell.   3 billion is a lot of money, particuarly if its cash, not stock options.

If I was Snapchat, I would have sold out for $3 bills in a heartbeat. I can only assume that Snapchat thinks they'll be worth more than $3 billion in the future...which I think is a fairly long shot for a company with an easily duplicated technology, no revenue model, and no easy way to shoehorn one in without hemorrhaging users.

I'm not a Snapchat user, but if their claim about not storing messages is accurate, that means they can't mine for info and sell it like Facebook or Twitter does, and randomly texting you ads would probably cause users to leave in droves. Maybe Snapchat thinks it can do some sort of subscription model?


Its pretty much the whole REASON to start a software company is to eventually sell it one day and cash in.  What were they waiting for?    Disney bought the entire Lucasfilm library, past, present, and future for only 4 billion.    Do these snapchat folks think they offer greater earning potential than LucasFilm?
 
2014-05-19 05:56:50 PM

Random Anonymous Blackmail: Smeggy Smurf

Dragonflew: And I have no idea where the first three words of my post went.


Zuckerturd banned them as being child porn aka he's rubbing one one to those words right now


So he is going to build his own child porn app, with hookers and blackjack?


I think he's forgotten the app and the blackjack by now...
 
2014-05-19 06:39:17 PM

Random Anonymous Blackmail: Smeggy Smurf

Dragonflew: And I have no idea where the first three words of my post went.


Zuckerturd banned them as being child porn aka he's rubbing one one to those words right now


So he is going to build his own child porn app, with hookers and blackjack?


Nah, 4chan already exists
 
2014-05-19 06:56:08 PM
Yep, sometimes when you're running Pied Piper, maybe it's better to take the money from Hooli.  Because you just know they're just going to throw a team at it and try and beat you to market with what they hope is a better version and with their marketing team and budget behind it: even if it's worse -  you could still find yourself edged out of the market in that limited space.

Mike Judge got his start in Silicon Valley, so it's no surprise that he can nail the foibles of the tech industry so well.   First in cubicle hell with Office Space and now with Silicon Valley.
 
2014-05-19 07:04:42 PM
I, for one, worked with Rajaminish Sanpchat, an upper-caste Hindu from Bangalore on many important engineering issues in the last decade. Please not to be making jokes, my friend......
 
2014-05-19 07:42:45 PM

gingerjet: qorkfiend: I can only assume that Snapchat thinks they'll be worth more than $3 billion in the future...which I think is a fairly long shot for a company with an easily duplicated technology, no revenue model, and no easy way to shoehorn one in without hemorrhaging users.

Which was said about twitter but even that property is pulling $600 million in revenue every year.

/its about building a community of users which they've appeared to have done
//which google has failed to do with google+


I don't know about that. My google+ feed is actually pretty busy with interesting things while my Facebook is just a stream of "what Pope are you" quiz links. You just need to out and search for Google+ communities that interest you.
 
2014-05-19 08:20:14 PM

Nadie_AZ: Nucleus?


Jam on it

/better not be obscure
 
2014-05-19 08:21:35 PM

T.rex: Its pretty much the whole REASON to start a software company is to eventually sell it one day and cash in.


Or you know you may want to develop and sell software you see a need for and just enjoy whatever success you have.
 
2014-05-19 08:31:03 PM
Yeah, if I was in their position, I'd totally take the $3 billion and then start doing cool Elon Musk style shiat with the proceeds.
 
2014-05-19 08:39:40 PM

Fonaibung: Sanpchat?


I blame Vodak.
 
2014-05-19 09:00:38 PM

Nadie_AZ: Nucleus?


Nculeus, obviously.
 
2014-05-19 11:22:51 PM
snackchat

it eats your words
 
2014-05-20 01:56:46 AM
These fools are going to be in serious remorse a few years from now like the tards at Groupon who turned down what was it ... $5 billion?
 
2014-05-20 04:15:03 AM

qorkfiend: T.rex: I wonder if those snapchat folks regret their decision not to sell.   3 billion is a lot of money, particuarly if its cash, not stock options.

If I was Snapchat, I would have sold out for $3 bills in a heartbeat. I can only assume that Snapchat thinks they'll be worth more than $3 billion in the future...which I think is a fairly long shot for a company with an easily duplicated technology, no revenue model, and no easy way to shoehorn one in without hemorrhaging users.

I'm not a Snapchat user, but if their claim about not storing messages is accurate, that means they can't mine for info and sell it like Facebook or Twitter does, and randomly texting you ads would probably cause users to leave in droves. Maybe Snapchat thinks it can do some sort of subscription model?


Maybe they could display an add using the words from the messages sends. Ie.  "see my new Nike shoes" = add for store selling Nike shoes. That wouldn't require them to store the contents of the message.

I'd take 3 bill as well, that's a farkload of money.
 
2014-05-20 04:16:23 AM

T.rex: qorkfiend: T.rex: I wonder if those snapchat folks regret their decision not to sell.   3 billion is a lot of money, particuarly if its cash, not stock options.

If I was Snapchat, I would have sold out for $3 bills in a heartbeat. I can only assume that Snapchat thinks they'll be worth more than $3 billion in the future...which I think is a fairly long shot for a company with an easily duplicated technology, no revenue model, and no easy way to shoehorn one in without hemorrhaging users.

I'm not a Snapchat user, but if their claim about not storing messages is accurate, that means they can't mine for info and sell it like Facebook or Twitter does, and randomly texting you ads would probably cause users to leave in droves. Maybe Snapchat thinks it can do some sort of subscription model?

Its pretty much the whole REASON to start a software company is to eventually sell it one day and cash in.  What were they waiting for?    Disney bought the entire Lucasfilm library, past, present, and future for only 4 billion.    Do these snapchat folks think they offer greater earning potential than LucasFilm?


You don't have to sell it, you can just go public. Worked out fine for Facebook.
 
2014-05-20 08:24:47 AM
Snapchat REALLY blew it. The app is already on a serious decline.

I use it, just because my daughter and some of my younger friends are on it. I have already noticed a steep decline in usage over the past 9 months.
 
2014-05-20 08:27:42 AM

TheNewJesus: apparently people really enjoy seeing

sending dicks

FIFY
 
2014-05-21 01:23:39 AM

MindStalker: TheNewJesus: apparently people really enjoy seeing sending dicks

FIFY


That's why chat-roulette existed I think... there you got full video of dicks.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report