181–190 of 311 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. If anyone wants to bet against them existing, I'll take the bet.
They'll exist, doesn't mean they'll be relevant, or profitable. If I were asked to bet against the stock, I probably would. Everything about their valuation and IPO smells to high heavens.
As soon as Snap goes public, you can short the stock. Go for it!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the comparison to Google's investments a good benchmark? Sometimes it's better to make something custom than to buy from a big corporation doing a more general thing at 100x your scale.
Sometimes. But look at Netflix. $8.8 billion revenue in 2016 and a good third of Internet traffic and nearly every single server they have is in AWS. They had their own custom data centers and made the choice to migrate to somebody else's infrastructure. I'm pretty sure they're doing just fine with that decision.
Needing this amount of resources implies that Snap is expecting huge growth. This sounds like a really bad move on their part and they should have committed to building out their own infrastructure on 'bare metal' over the next 5 years instead. If you read their S-1, they list a dependence on Google cloud as one of their big risk factors. Yet they then go ahead and make this commitment instead of working towards elim…
I love Hacker News, where a random person can tell a company their $2 billion plan on infrastructure is "a really bad move" with authority
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming that large companies can't be wrong is the reason why we have Enron and Bear Stearns
Completely wrong way to think about it. In fact, those companies are cases of fraud and lying , and we generally do not assume companies lie. When Google releases their quarterly earnings, we assume the numbers are correct, unless there is evidence to believe it's fraudulent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the comparison to Google's investments a good benchmark? Sometimes it's better to make something custom than to buy from a big corporation doing a more general thing at 100x your scale.
Sometimes. But look at Netflix. $8.8 billion revenue in 2016 and a good third of Internet traffic and nearly every single server they have is in AWS. They had their own custom data centers and made the choice to migrate to somebody else's infrastructure. I'm pretty sure they're doing just fine with that decision.
Needing this amount of resources implies that Snap is expecting huge growth. This sounds like a really bad move on their part and they should have committed to building out their own infrastructure on 'bare metal' over the next 5 years instead. If you read their S-1, they list a dependence on Google cloud as one of their big risk factors. Yet they then go ahead and make this commitment instead of working towards elim…
I love Hacker News, where a random person can tell a company their $2 billion plan on infrastructure is "a really bad move" with authority
Needing this amount of resources implies that Snap is expecting huge growth. This sounds like a really bad move on their part and they should have committed to building out their own infrastructure on 'bare metal' over the next 5 years instead. If you read their S-1, they list a dependence on Google cloud as one of their big risk factors. Yet they then go ahead and make this commitment instead of working towards elim…
I love Hacker News, where a random person can tell a company their $2 billion plan on infrastructure is "a really bad move" with authority
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the comparison to Google's investments a good benchmark? Sometimes it's better to make something custom than to buy from a big corporation doing a more general thing at 100x your scale.
Sometimes. But look at Netflix. $8.8 billion revenue in 2016 and a good third of Internet traffic and nearly every single server they have is in AWS. They had their own custom data centers and made the choice to migrate to somebody else's infrastructure. I'm pretty sure they're doing just fine with that decision.
The exception is serving films. If you watch a film, you receive bytes served by hardware built to Netflix' specification, running in leased space at a mixture of colos and ISPs. That's a really big exception. The third of internet traffic is that exception.
Needing this amount of resources implies that Snap is expecting huge growth. This sounds like a really bad move on their part and they should have committed to building out their own infrastructure on 'bare metal' over the next 5 years instead. If you read their S-1, they list a dependence on Google cloud as one of their big risk factors. Yet they then go ahead and make this commitment instead of working towards elim…
It might be a sort of signaling that google is a potential buyer.