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

Snapchat raised $1.8B in a Series F round

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 337 posts

Re: Snapchat raised $1.8B in a Series F round

#271

Post by HappyTypist »

gjolund wrote: post #232
shostack wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The monetization piece is interesting, because unlike FB, Snapchat has been all about privacy and anonymity from day one. Their recent ToS change makes it clear that this might not always be the case, and I'm really curious to see how their users react as they get more and more aggressive on monetization. The core functionality doesn't necessarily require the network effect to be useful, unlike Facebook, so there is…

They store all the photos internally. This was confirmed to me by several snapchat employees while interviewing.

Do you mean indefinitely? Are they not deleted after a certain period of time?

Re: Snapchat raised $1.8B in a Series F round

#272

Post by Trundle »

overcast wrote: post #127
v64 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't understand why use cases 1 and 2 wouldn't just send a text message picture. Why would you bother with a 3rd party app that erases them? Snapchat has more features than sending a simple text. I still use text message pictures when I just want to send a picture. Snapchat lets you caption and draw on photos, which is a big draw. The erasing part of it is a feature too, and not just for nude pics. For example,…

If you're that concerned/uncomfortable about what you're sending then don't send it in the first place. Once it's on the internet, it's there forever. Does Snapchat not have the feature now to save incoming messages for a price? I'll grant you the feature of drawing on pictures though.

That's an unnecessarily black and white perspective. In reality it's "once it's on the internet, it's possibly there forever" and snapchat is a step in the "it wont be" direction. It's entirely possible for someone to be willing to to take that risk.

Hell, most of us do it in real life. I say plenty of things I wouldn't necessarily want provided to my mother or employer, and small audio recording devices are cheap. I trust my friends and partners to not save and share unflattering snaps the exact same way I trust them to not record our real life conversations.

If you're planning to run for President some time in the future, maybe it's worth it to always act as if the public is watching. I think the rest of us are fine.

Re: Snapchat raised $1.8B in a Series F round

#273

Post by argonaut »

gjolund wrote: post #242
argonaut wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. That's why they're actually even worse off. All else equal , the more employees a company employs, the worse of an investment it is, because costs are greater.

As a business they might be less profitable, but as a society we benefit more from their existence.

Now you're just moving the goalposts. VCs are out to maximize profit. If startups were funded by the government you would have a basis for complaining about how societal benefit is not being maximized.

Re: Snapchat raised $1.8B in a Series F round

#274

Post by argonaut »

the_watcher wrote: post #268
argonaut wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy this scenario. The failure scenario I have in mind is their monetized products fail to catch on, and they are basically like Twitter - no other products that directly compete in that niche, but not a cash cow either. Or WhatsApp - very popular, not a cash cow.

Common misconception: Twitter has actually pretty steadily increased its revenue per user. Their issue is that their user growth has basically plateaued far short of the ubiquitous level they need.

I am aware of that difference. As a company Twitter is not a cash cow.

Re: Snapchat raised $1.8B in a Series F round

#275

Post by argonaut »

gjolund wrote: post #232
shostack wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The monetization piece is interesting, because unlike FB, Snapchat has been all about privacy and anonymity from day one. Their recent ToS change makes it clear that this might not always be the case, and I'm really curious to see how their users react as they get more and more aggressive on monetization. The core functionality doesn't necessarily require the network effect to be useful, unlike Facebook, so there is…

They store all the photos internally. This was confirmed to me by several snapchat employees while interviewing.

And nobody cares? Sexting is an extremely minor use of Snapchat nowadays, and everyone knows you can just screenshot.

Re: Snapchat raised $1.8B in a Series F round

#276

Post by vonklaus »

adotjdotr wrote: post #231
vonklaus wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

look, I am all for giving snapchat the benefit of the doubt (or I did a long time ago) it was actully the classic zuckerberg boardroom story peter theil tells all the time, except zuckerberg was yahoo to snapchat(i think yahoo was the aquirer but IDRP). Mark Zuckerberg was a the full package, a super talented developer and shrewd business man. Maybe he was cocky, maybe he was super clever, but he doubled down on hims…

"Snapchat does not have a clear monetization strategy and the content they have is ephemeral. If a snapchat clone came out tomorrow, snapchat wouldn't be as sticky. Snapchat looks like twitter, the poster child for massive high engagement with disposable content and horrible biz fundamentals. In fact, twitter or facebook could clone snapchat probably super easy and enjoy crazy leverage and synergy. The only reason a…

i agree, you make some compelling points. i would be interested to know more about how big a market the adv/data piece is and how yoh use it. i was wrong when i said they don't have a clear moneyization strategy. I should restate what i think now: it is still not clear to me what strategy would support the growth required from an investment of this magnitude demands

however, like pg said about whatsapp acq, it was like taking the atomic mass of company. who are you going yo believe, mark zuckerberg, the guy who is betting hos company amd his own money and furure on it after extensive talks, internal fb ops kniwl, and access to WA books, or TC pundits. (clearly my summary, not direct wuote. was video interview, tough to find source)

i do believe still, to disagree somewhat, that fb ipo was botched. point i was making is that facebook was a very strong company (at least rel to SC) and the IPO was indervalued because of scandal and technical errors. even undervalued, a comparative IPO for snapchat would still require a huge increase in real revenue and numbers.

it is a steep climb, if we say FB was $100B and dont adjust for the interference of several problems (glitch, scandal, info leak) snapchat would have to justify real profitability and massive rev growth. maybe they have that, but (advanced apologies for no citation) facebooks revenue indicated by their s-1 filing was 3.7 billion with 0.845B users.

This is a real question not rhetoric: Do you think snapchat can achieve these numbers given 3 years?

Re: Snapchat raised $1.8B in a Series F round

#277

Post by argonaut »

gjolund wrote: post #252
argonaut wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. By definition most people's day to day lives are average and not particularly special.

I find conversations on snapchat annoy me in the same way as conversations with a needy attention seeking girlfriend. All the person wants is confirmation of existence, and most of the time they are not actually interested in a real conversation.

One wonders why you're even bothering to complain. You realize that fashion, entertainment, movies, video gaming, female modeling, male modeling, and so on probably collectively make up more than $1 trillion of the world economy?

Re: Snapchat raised $1.8B in a Series F round

#279

Post by azinman2 »

HappyTypist wrote: post #271
gjolund wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They store all the photos internally. This was confirmed to me by several snapchat employees while interviewing.

Do you mean indefinitely? Are they not deleted after a certain period of time?

Effectively they are deleted just not how you might imagine -- I can't reveal more as I'm not supposed to know this ;)

Re: Snapchat raised $1.8B in a Series F round

#280

Post by lotso »

gjolund wrote: post #241
nostrademons wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a misunderstanding of where shareholder value comes from. The valuation (market cap) of a company is a reflection of the value of the assets that the company owns . That includes IP, trademarks, brand assets (somewhat perversely, this also includes user habits), business relationships & contracts, any resellable physical goods or cash that the company owns, and all future cash flows that will accrue to the co…

Really solid reply, and a great explanation. I completely understand that from a shareholder perspective companies like facebook and snapchat are huge wins. However my argument is that as a society these companies have very little value. I believe that the current wave of tech startups are the equivalent of shareholder junk food. I nice relatively immediate return, and no real long term value.

Providing more compelling forms of communication is incredibly valuable to society.
Post reply on HN