http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-messenger-whatsapp-usage-chart-2014-2
That's a lot of dineros
That's a lot of dineros
I'm going to start carrying a gun.Hambone said:Now if you excuse me, I'll be kidnapping Blacken and starting a social networking application.
Is that chart totally useless or is it just me?AlNipper49 said:http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-messenger-whatsapp-usage-chart-2014-2
That's a lot of dineros
You could do a lot worse than being kidnapped by hambone. Last time I visited him I ended up with some drunk hottie we had never met before on my shoulders attempting to climb a 75 foot fish.Blacken said:I'm going to start carrying a gun.
Monbo Jumbo said:Has it real been 16 years since AOL paid about $300mil for ICQs 12 million users?
Seven Costanza said:WhatsApp = 6.3 Motorolas
This sort of acquisition makes a lot more sense to me honestly (regardless of price). I see three pieces of value to Whatsapp - 1) monetizing it directly through ads/selling apps, whatever; 2) monetizing the user information, like who is talking to who, and about what; 3) trying to get Whatsapp users to use your other, non-competing services (in this case, Google+ or Facebook).Seven Costanza said:Google apparently offered 10 billion for WhatsApp. Interested to know if they had any real intention of buying it, or just wanted to drive up the price for FB.
mt8thsw9th said:
Which was a bit of a "bargain" given Google took a nearly $10 billion bath on that one. Hopefully Facebook isn't making the same mistake.
canderson said:So they bought into the Asian market. Probably a smart move for advertising purposes.
Why is it a given that this has billions of dollars of monetary value?Trlicek's Whip said:It's an OS-agnostic iMessage app with ridiculous traction and growth. $16 billion was a bargain, and Google's $10 billion bid looks really cheap.
They'll make their money back double if they manage to keep those users in the Facebook ecosphere for an additional minute a day. *DukeSox said:how do you monetize messaging? send people ads as texts? or is this just more acquire the user base and figure it out later?
bowiac said:Facebook down about $4.5B in market cap in after hours trading FWIW, so the market reaction is less than thrilled. I'd have guessed it'd be down more honestly.
Chuck Z said:This is eerily reminiscent of 1999-2001. Paying for eyeballs has never proven to be a viable way to grow or create an internet business. The only difference now is that more of the world has computers/phones, so there are a lot more eyeballs to jack up the valuation. FB is already trading at about 30x sales. Which is ridiculous. To put this in perspective, if Google was trading at 30x sales, its shares would be valued at around $5400 and it would be the largest company in the world by about a $1T.
For Facebook to even get to that point on this deal, WhatsApp has to see 2900% revenue growth in the next 12 months, or directly attribute about $600M in revenue growth to this acquisition. They bought a company with $20 million in revenue for $19 billion. Typically, that's not a very good move.
I think this is a great question. Probably will also be interesting to see if people were using an app like this because it WASN'T owned by a Facebook or Google. I disagree with the notion above that network affects don't matter -- getting all of the people onto a new messaging platform strikes me as something that isn't easy unless you're apple and bake it right in -- but I do think that this particular application's appeal had something to do with the fact that it wasn't connected to these other platforms. It was dead simple, used a phone number, didn't require a bunch of accounts, and didn't try to be more than it was. If FB buys it and messes with it at all, I could imagine user defection issues.jayhoz said:I'd be interested to know what their user retention is when the free year trial ends.
AlNipper49 said:
I think that the mistake that they made was that the 'innovators' believed that eyeballs in themselves were a means to an end. The key is to attract eyeballs to something that eyeballs want to stick with. As MDL said below, if those eyeball in this case include untapped markets for a product that they've been underexposed to, then it'll work out just fine for Mark and crew.
He basically concludes that this is a means to get more users onto Facebook, where the market has valued users at $130 apiece, meaning it would take ~145 million marginal facebook users to pay for this.Are there dangers in this deal? Of course! First, it is possible (and perhaps even probable) that the market is over estimating the value of users at social media companies across the board. However, Facebook has buffered the blowback from this problem by paying for the bulk of the deal with its own shares. Thus, if it turns out that a year or two from now that reality brings social media companies back down to earth, Facebook would have overpaid for Whatsapp but the shares it used on the overpayment were also over priced.
It's transcribed from 14 tweets, so in a way, yes.wilked said:Is that intentionally written in a way to minimize readability?