291–300 of 337 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple Spends $220K on Tim Cook http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/3444424458x0x921...
And Facebook spends $5mn on security for its CEO and $1m for its CFO. http://nypost.com/2016/04/28/facebook-has-spent-14-5m-on-zuc...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not how hardware works. At least 2 EEs, another couple EE techs to fix prototype up boards that come in and prepare development boards for the software work. You will have a couple people doing just regulatory work. Sign off on BT, USB, batteries, etc. At least 1 ME, at least 1 industrial designer as well. 1 person in charge of optics. 1 software person to do board bring up, another person who specializes in…
And yet college students make products like this in their spare time and Palmer Lucky created the Oculus Rift prototype in his garage. My lord. Always the HN expert to wag the finger. It is really not that hard. Not anywhere near as easy as software, but far easier than you describe. It doesn't take 20 people to slap a camera and a microcontroller on the same board. I could build Spectacles this weekend with 100x the…
Says the expert with nothing to support your assertive claims.
Am I reading this right? I'm no banker... Their losses for 2016 were ~$500m? That's very steep, but it looks like revenue grew almost 700%. Wow. Insane numbers. I don't think anyone on the planet knows what's going to happen with them but I am sure interested in finding out.
$50 it'll tank like Twitter. (And to the people downvoting me, please explain why you think it won't tank like Twitter - thanks!)
Perhaps, a bit like Twitter, there are only so many people out there who want the unique functionality that Snapchat offers.
That said, there are a lot of smart people at Snap, and they seem to have a culture that encourages imagining, and shipping, big changes to their core product. So they may be able to get things back on track.
But if they can't restart the growth engine soon I'll seriously consider shorting their stock.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GCE is incapable of doing the most recent cloud setup I've built on AWS, which uses g2 instances extensively (although Azure could). I need the actual GPU—graphics, OpenGL, etc.—part, not just CUDA, in addition to the hardware H.264 encoders that come with nVidia's GRID CPUs. GCE has no equivalent. We're also using Amazon's Elastic File System, and I don't think Google has an alternative—though that's something I cou…
We announced that we'll have AMD's 9300x2s and NVIDIA's P100s at Supercomputing: https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2016/11/announcing-GPUs... I'd be happy to get you early access, Erich ;). Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud.
I'm pretty sure AMD also has the ability to H.264 encode the screen at 60fps (with low latency) which is really important to us—our "workstation" is entirely in the cloud, with a Pi 3 running the display/keyboard/mouse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, they do have 1859 employees. If you say on average they're paid $50k each (totally made up estimate, would love for someone to give me a better one), that would be almost $100mil a year in base salary alone.
I would 2.5x that estimate and with benefits etc, round it up to total cost $200k per employee.
> Although other U.S.-based companies have publicly traded classes of non-voting stock, to our knowledge, no other company has completed an initial public offering of non-voting stock on a U.S. stock exchange. We cannot predict whether this structure and the concentrated control it affords Mr. Spiegel and Mr. Murphy will result in a lower trading price or greater fluctuations in the trading price of our Class A commo…
The attention of many hundreds of millions or billions of people is a very valuable resources that they will have no problem selling. Keep in mind that there is a limited amount of human attention in the world, and it's a zero-sum game to control it. As Facebook has discovered, owning a huge amount of attention gives you a ton of leverage over advertisers who want to buy it. Being in the long tail of smaller attention-holders gives you much less.
So Snap will either grow to compete with TV and Facebook as one of the top attention-holders, or else they'll fizzle out into irrelevance, burning through gobs of cash along the way.
I mean, sure, they could aim to be a nice $500 million company that builds a product that makes people happy and makes their employees comfortably upper middle class. But that's clearly not their ambition so there's no point in discussing their finances as if it were.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To generate excitement for X-Men: Apocalypse, 20th Century Fox ran a Sponsored Lens campaign that let users turn themselves into the iconic characters in the upcoming movie. In one day, people spent a collective 56 years playing with the Sponsored Lenses, which also featured the mutants’ powers. They also incorporated the Sponsored Lens into Snaps they shared with their friends, which yielded over 298 million views…
When it comes to movies, what Rotten Tomatoes has to say is usually more persuasive than a Snapchat lens
I know of plenty of movies that have terrible ratings from professional critics, but got great box office earnings and all my friends who watched it really enjoyed. There's also plenty of movies with great ratings that I disliked.
Outside of your programmer/hacker/related friends, how many actually look at at the Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic ratings before deciding to view a movie. I know I don't for theater movies.
Take the new Jack Reacher movie, it has mediocre at best ratings, but I really enjoyed it (I must admit I watched it at the cinema for free, and had nothing better to do).
I think that for the average person, exposure is a very effective method of advertising films.