How Snapchat Could March Startups Right Off the Cliff, Lemming-Style
Nerval's Lobster writes "Two investors are Tweeting that Instagram, had it stayed an independent company, could be worth between $5 billion and $15 billion today. That's led to talk of whether Snapchat was right to (reportedly) shoot down Facebook's bid of $3 billion for its business, considering its growth and sizable user base. Snapchat's founders evidently think they can score a better deal within the next few quarters. If they manage to sell their startup a year from now for twice as much, they'll be lauded as extraordinarily smart businessmen—perhaps smarter than the folks at Instagram who sold for a 'measly' $1 billion (and all this despite Snapchat making no revenue). But for other startups in the space, the Snapchat and Instragram stories won't do them much good. Propelled by dreams of ever-increasing millions (perhaps billions!) startup founders could end up turning down perfectly good acquisition offers in favor of continuing to bootstrap — and find their businesses eroding and imploding, as the market for their particular app or service either fades away or (more likely) ends up crowded out by competing software. The startup market is a shark-tank, and most of those who don't get out of the water as soon as possible are eaten, dreams of grandeur or no."
Headlines from Captain Obvious.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
You mean like programmed by a bunch of Scots and saturated ports of other platforms taking the world by storm eventually being bought up by a larger entity to rot on with half-assed iterations through third-party developers?
Snapchat was made by frat bro's who royally screwed the guy who did all the real work.
A *real* tech thought it up and made it, then his rich friends stole his idea...
An idea for a way for people to send drunk videos to each other w/o consequences, which the frat-bro's took to the logical place they would, which is to drunken college girls...
**that's Snapchat**
Facebook.com offered $3Billion b/c facebook.com is *hemoragging* young users & it will do anything to buy other system's users (ex: Instagram) for them to vampire the life force from for advertising profit
that's it: facebook.com wants to buy Snapchat's users
all the noise about 'IPO valuation' is absolutely standard issue tech-bubble startup stuff that **we all know** how the cycle goes!
snapchat is only good as long as drunken hotties use it to send consequence free drunk selfie videos
Thank you Dave Raggett
If Facebook offered them that much money, they are complete nimrods to turn it down.
Maybe they didn't think that the alternative is Facebook (and maybe others) dropping a cool $1B on a similar app of their own that better integrates with existing social platforms. Wonder how much their company will be worth then?
Idiocy. Greed and idiocy. Will be hilarious if they can't even sell for $0.5B in 6 months.
We have gone through a first round of startups which were actually pioneering, back in the dot com days.
The next boom are startups which really don't offer much in the way of breaking ground. What they offer is the fact that their customers and their product are totally different groups. FB, Twitter, SnapChat, and many more follow this model.
The problem is that there is only so much money advertisers will pay, and only so much data they can squeeze out of their subscribers before they give the middle finger and move on. This is a bubble waiting to happen, because long-term, there isn't really any product, and their services are essentially fungible. Someone else can come out with a virtually identical service and wrest the userbase away, just like Facebook wrested MySpace's userbase away.
I can understand why people invest in these companies on the short term, but long term, what product do they have over time? Cable at least has fiber in the ground guaranteeing they will be around. Same with wireless providers and spectrum.
The original "but we're worth so much more than they're offering" dot.com story...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PointCast_(dotcom)
How many have their been since?
Nah, that one is evident. $3B for a competitor with no revenue, after $1B for a competitor with little revenue?
They are not looking for "enough" money to sip drinks at the beach. They are looking to ride the crazy train and steer it along for as long as they can...and selling out to a company at any amount takes them out of the driver seat. And if the shit really hits the fan and things take a dive, they'll still be able to off load their once $3B company for a couple hundred million which is certainly "enough" in failure mode.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.