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

Snap Inc. S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 337 posts

Re: Snap Inc. S-1

#171

Post by cpmsmith »

sjg007 wrote: post #154
OrwellianChild wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things scale differently in different markets and products... It might be trivial to spin up extra cloud capacity within Google's system and benefit from all the robustness and redundancy they've already designed out. Meanwhile, Amazon is building their own UPS competitor because their infrastructure needs in the real world are specialized enough to be able to benefit. Each case is different and the details drive the…

I think Amazon is building their own UPS because UPS hasn't scaled for them.

In this case, scale counts as a specialization IMO.

Re: Snap Inc. S-1

#172

Post by beamatronic »

scarmig wrote: post #136
carlisle_ wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is absolutely possible to build a stellar internal alternative to Google's offerings in 5 years with 2 billion dollars. edit: I should point out that this doesn't account for ramp-up. It would obviously take awhile before things would be to a point where it would be even comparable.

Oracle is spending way more than 2 billion dollars on its cloud team in an attempt to catch up to AWS, GCP, and Azure. Would you consider Oracle's cloud endeavor a fair test of how able a company is to reproduce GCP's offering with a fistful of money?

What I can't figure out is why Oracle didn't start down this road 10-20 years ago. They more than anyone should have some ideas about scaling infrastructure for databases.

Re: Snap Inc. S-1

#173

Post by k-mcgrady »

charlesdm wrote: post #139
urs2102 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I'm not so surprised by that, as much as I'm surprised by the 8MM user growth from June to now. That's what's seems weird to me. Is that not indicative of a plateau?

I didn't actually read that part. If they only added 8MM DAU from June -> now, then it deserves to tank on its first trading day. Sounds like a decent short actually, once it cools down.

Why would it tank based on numbers available BEFORE it IPO's? I know there are idiots out there but surely the big investors are going to take figures available in the filing into account.

Re: Snap Inc. S-1

#174

Post by urs2102 »

mdb333 wrote: post #134
charlesdm wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it worth $25bn? Seems like a (massive) stretch, but maybe. Can it still realistically increase in value from this point? Probably not.

agree this reeks of ca 2000 burstage... so you have a bunch of eyeballs you sell ads to. Big f'in deal, that's not a $25B business unless you can continue to scale 10x (profitably). The rest is simply tech-fad novelty junk. I'd still buy into the IPO and ride it up a bit though.

Ride it up? You think it'll do a Facebook? Go up a bit and then tank immediately for a while?

Re: Snap Inc. S-1

#175

Post by baby_wipe »

melvinmt wrote: post #4

Very interesting to see what they think of their competition: > We face significant competition in almost every aspect of our business both domestically and internationally. This includes larger, more established companies such as Apple, Facebook (including Instagram and WhatsApp), Google (including YouTube), Twitter, Kakao, LINE, Naver (including Snow), and Tencent, which provide their users with a variety of produc…

This probably has more to do with anti-trust concerns. They don't want to appear as a monopoly to regulators.

Re: Snap Inc. S-1

#176

Post by sjg007 »

johansch wrote: post #50
hrrsn wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would think their bandwidth costs are astronomical. Since 19/3/16 Snapchat has used 14.8GB of mobile data on my iPhone alone - not including WiFi.

Bandwidth is kinda cheap these days though, if you avoid GC and AWS. Anyone have recent numbers at this scale of commitment?

They will get a bulk discount so it will be cheap probably close to zero.

Re: Snap Inc. S-1

#177

Post by [deleted] »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #173
charlesdm wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't actually read that part. If they only added 8MM DAU from June -> now, then it deserves to tank on its first trading day. Sounds like a decent short actually, once it cools down.

Why would it tank based on numbers available BEFORE it IPO's? I know there are idiots out there but surely the big investors are going to take figures available in the filing into account.

[deleted]

Re: Snap Inc. S-1

#178

Post by urs2102 »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #173
charlesdm wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't actually read that part. If they only added 8MM DAU from June -> now, then it deserves to tank on its first trading day. Sounds like a decent short actually, once it cools down.

Why would it tank based on numbers available BEFORE it IPO's? I know there are idiots out there but surely the big investors are going to take figures available in the filing into account.

Well, it could go the Facebook route. Remember when FB was going to IPO at $33 a share and then it went up to $38 - it had a P/E ratio of like 100. People could just get excited about Snapchat being the next Facebook, it could go up with initial excitement (not saying all people, but markets are fickle). I guess we'll see what the price per share is.

Re: Snap Inc. S-1

#179

Post by dvdhnt »

rcymerys wrote: post #64
dvdhnt wrote: post #11

> We had 158 million Daily Active Users on average in the quarter ended December 31, 2016, and we view Daily Active Users as a critical measure of our user engagement. > We anticipate that our Daily Active Users growth rate will decline over time if the size of our active user base increases or we achieve higher market penetration rates. If our Daily Active Users growth rate slows, our financial performance will incr…

Wasn't twitter also measuring success in number of users and growth, marginalizing their losses? For now it seems like they're still only a picture-sharing app that's popular right now. Obviously they're doing a lot to secure this position, but I wonder if they'll be able to maintain user's engagement for a longer period of time.

You are correct. I think they also shifted from daily active users to monthly active users to mask a decline in daily usage.

Re: Snap Inc. S-1

#180

Post by fastball »

My takeaway was that Snap has 1,859 employees... huh?

Why does a company with a single product, which is a mobile app (so what is that these days, three platforms?) need almost two thousand employees - am I missing something? No wonder they lost $514mil in 2016, that's an absurd amount of overhead for a company with a single, not very cumbersome product.

Post reply on HN