Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twilio S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 229 posts

Re: Twilio S-1

#171

Post by cloudjacker »

robbiemitchell wrote: post #168
cloudjacker wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Messenger = US, WhatsApp = Rest of the world Viber = when WhatsApp voice is down during the world cup

Sort of. WeChat in China, LINE in Japan. And again, if you look at what WeChat has done with embedded services, and believe that will spread, then you wonder whether it will happen on WhatsApp vs. something else. And I don't see Facebook putting the energy into the automation/interaction platform on WhatsApp that it is going to do on Facebook.

I thought about modifying it to include Asian saturation, but I was thinking more so about Facebook services, of which Viber is not one but an underdog

Re: Twilio S-1

#172

Post by ben_jones »

hamana wrote: post #82
evanpw wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a 1986 Fortune article: "With pretax profits running as high as 34% of revenues, Microsoft needed no outside money to expand." [1] http://fortune.com/2011/03/13/inside-the-deal-that-made-bill...

Why doesn't Twilio have 34% profit margin? Because their price is low and their costs are high. If they increase the price of their product and cut certain costs, they would have similar profit margin to Microsoft.

They also don't own the networks they operate on.

Re: Twilio S-1

#173

Post by nickbaum »

It's hard to overstate how much easier the Twilio API has made it for developers to interact with SMS and phones.

When I first built StoryWorth, it only worked over email because I thought voice recording would be too complex (both to use and to implement).

However, users kept asking for it so I finally bit the bullet... and it was way easier than I expected. Using the Twilio API, I had voice recordings over the phone working within days.

The team is also super friendly. Less than a month after our launch, someone reached out to me and they wrote about our company on their blog:

https://www.twilio.com/blog/2013/05/old-stories-new-tech-sto...

Really glad to see their continued success!

Re: Twilio S-1

#174

Post by ChuckMcM »

shostack wrote: post #150
ChuckMcM wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Google is much of a threat, they seem to hate Gvoice internally having had several opportunities to make it a platform and passing (yes they used to have voice APIs on code.google.com). Bottom line, I don't think Google gets it (kind of like Facebook and web search) And since the Unicorn Feeding stations have all been shut down :-) unprofitable companies of this size have three choices, IPO, die quickly…

Given the way you laid out those scenarios, would you agree then that the goal then of IPO is finding a greater fool on Main Street and passing the buck while they can? Is there anything here that indicates that the cash infusion from an IPO would get them on the track to profitability?

Yes, in general the bargain is that in exchange for accepting some additional constraints on behavior and a required level of transparency, you can sell securities to non-qualified investors (aka the Greater Fool in your comment).

That said, I'm not sure I would be willing to invest at the IPO but if Twillo can show they are getting traction on their business plan and reach profitability, then I would consider investing in them at that stage.

Re: Twilio S-1

#175

Post by ChuckMcM »

a_small_island wrote: post #162
ChuckMcM wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Google is much of a threat, they seem to hate Gvoice internally having had several opportunities to make it a platform and passing (yes they used to have voice APIs on code.google.com). Bottom line, I don't think Google gets it (kind of like Facebook and web search) And since the Unicorn Feeding stations have all been shut down :-) unprofitable companies of this size have three choices, IPO, die quickly…

>if they did a big reverse split prior to the S-1 its possible the employees will have underwater options at the IPO Any past examples of this?

Lots. One I was personally familiar with was SSNI (Silver Spring Networks)

Re: Twilio S-1

#176

Post by stemuk »

hexalisk wrote: post #143
stemuk wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you share a link to the Firebase SMS verification you stated in your comment? Was actually looking for something like this... :D

Ah, sorry about that -it looks like I misremembered and they don't actually offer that. I'll edit that out so it doesn't mislead more people.

Sure, no problem! Was just curious, it seemed too good to be true :D

Re: Twilio S-1

#177

Post by jrcii »

markolschesky wrote: post #12

Had no idea that WhatsApp was even a Twilio customer let alone one of its largest. >We currently generate significant revenue from WhatsApp and the loss of WhatsApp could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition. >In 2013, 2014 and 2015 and the three months ended March 31, 2016, WhatsApp accounted for 11%, 13%, 17% and 15% of our revenue, respectively. WhatsApp uses our Programmable Voice prod…

I worry that maybe there's a bubble in Silicon Valley created by all these startups being large customers of each other so it's just a bunch of VC money going around in circles.

Re: Twilio S-1

#178

Post by gdudeman »

antoniuschan99 wrote: post #87
Animats wrote: post #75

There's a lot there not to like: Revenue: $166,919,000 Net Loss: $38,896,000 So they're still not profitable. This is surprising, since they don't have any big capital investments. They're not doing anything that takes a lot of R&D. The thing runs on Amazon AWS. They've been operating for years and should be profitable by now. Yes, they're growing fast, but the costs don't rise in advance of the growth. You don't hav…

I don't understand this. Is it a land-grab focus? Why do so many software companies focus solely on growth? A traditional business with $166 million in revenue is huge. Why are investors not asking for a return on their investments already? Don't investors usually look for a return on their investments within 2-3 years?

Return can be two things: profit now or future profit.

A traditional business with $166m in revenue has few places to invest extra cash that turn $1 into $4 in What would be crazy is not investing in growth.

Re: Twilio S-1

#179

Post by eeeeeeeeeeeee »

runako wrote: post #26
karangoeluw wrote: post #5

I love Twilio, but I'm a little surprised they lost $35M on $166M rev in 2015. I thought they were very close to profitability.

They are not being managed for profitability; they are being managed for scale. They are growing at near 100% y/o/y, so management has decided to keep the pedal down until they win the market. Profitability comes in the out years, way down the line. Amazon is the most famous (successful) example of this. I don't work there, but I can assure you that nothing at Twilio is structured to be a profitable small company.

Isn't Amazon only profitable because of AWS? If you cut that out or put AWS into a separate company, Amazon still wouldn't be profitable as a company if I remember correctly.

Re: Twilio S-1

#180

Post by gnopgnip »

antoniuschan99 wrote: post #87
Animats wrote: post #75

There's a lot there not to like: Revenue: $166,919,000 Net Loss: $38,896,000 So they're still not profitable. This is surprising, since they don't have any big capital investments. They're not doing anything that takes a lot of R&D. The thing runs on Amazon AWS. They've been operating for years and should be profitable by now. Yes, they're growing fast, but the costs don't rise in advance of the growth. You don't hav…

I don't understand this. Is it a land-grab focus? Why do so many software companies focus solely on growth? A traditional business with $166 million in revenue is huge. Why are investors not asking for a return on their investments already? Don't investors usually look for a return on their investments within 2-3 years?

The stock price is a result of many factors, future profit and growth is a big part of it. Having a good long term outlook is better than slashing everything for the short term.
Post reply on HN