Snap Inc. Reports First Quarter 2017 Results

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 11, 2017, 1:38 AM UTC

olegkikin wrote: post #175

us0r wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"server costs" (Google Cloud) is an affordable $450 million per year commitment. They apparently have 2,360 employees doing who knows what (not growing the user base). My favorite part: "Spiegel laughed out loud when asked if he was worried about Facebook copying his features. “Just because Yahoo has a search box doesn’t mean they’re Google."" We'll check back in a year to see if he feels the same way.

$450M/year to support 160M daily actives seems insane. That's $2.81 per user per year. That's like paying $234/month in hosting alone for 1K daily actives. What is all that computing power used for?

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 11, 2017, 1:42 AM UTC

funkyy wrote: post #125

rjvir wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over 1000 Googlers were cranking on Google Plus, which at the time was a Facebook copy cat. What makes Facebook so threatening to Snapchat is the aggressive cloning in tandem with it's pre-existing, larger network. By the time Google decided to clone Facebook, the Facebook Graph was already more powerful than the GMail graph (which is what Google Plus was built on).

Facebook copycat? It was poor take on Facebook. Bad design, bad decisions, bad UI and bad UX. There was no vision for it, Google Plus would be much better as LinkedIn killer than Facebook killer.

Post by Inconel » Thu, May 11, 2017, 1:54 AM UTC

trevyn wrote: post #117

Fricken wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beats me. Maybe they have a warehouse full of them they can't get rid of. Maybe they can barely keep up with demand, I don't know. They're very cheap, it's a minimum viable product, but I'm expecting some next gen product from Snap somewhere down the line that may include some sort of HUD if not full on AR, based on their patents.

> Maybe they can barely keep up with demand, I don't know. Definitely not that one. The Spectacles store on the Venice Beach boardwalk is always a desolate wasteland.

Post by anchpop » Thu, May 11, 2017, 2:04 AM UTC

nojvek wrote: post #129

slackoverflower wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would most certainly buy $SNAP over every one of these companies. People don't get it. For everyone between the ages of 13 to 26, Snapchat is their only social network, their only messaging app, their go to camera! That is inherently more value that any of those companies combined.

Facebook is big, it's everywhere. That's not cool for teens. Being different is what teens want. This can backfire on snap too if there is something even "cooler". I will definitely buy some SNAP after they employees sell like crazy in desperation. I am optimistic about future value of SNAP and pessimistic about Facebook

Post by acchow » Thu, May 11, 2017, 2:24 AM UTC

us0r wrote: post #135

theprop wrote: post #59

This is one of the ugliest financial statements I've ever seen. The multi-billion dollar loss is due mostly to stock compensation, but still their COGS or cost of revenues sold was greater than their revenues. That's probably the first time that's been seen for a sizable software company in the history of the industry. They said their revenue per DAU is $.90 and their server costs per DAU were $.60...so that means se…

"server costs" (Google Cloud) is an affordable $450 million per year commitment. They apparently have 2,360 employees doing who knows what (not growing the user base). My favorite part: "Spiegel laughed out loud when asked if he was worried about Facebook copying his features. “Just because Yahoo has a search box doesn’t mean they’re Google."" We'll check back in a year to see if he feels the same way.