281–290 of 294 posts
Is there any public company that releases earnings in realtime rather than quarterly and/or annually? Has this ever been tried? Is there any rational behind earnings being reported quarterly/annually besides it being aligned with existing regulatory and accounting procedures?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can you create "any type of instructional video" when the Snaps are limited to 30 seconds.
Although Soviet filmmakers in the 1920s disagreed about how exactly to view montage, Sergei Eisenstein marked a note of accord in "A Dialectic Approach to Film Form" when he noted that montage is "the nerve of cinema", and that "to determine the nature of montage is to solve the specific problem of cinema". Its influence is far reaching commercially, academically, and politically. Alfred Hitchcock cites editing (and…
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.
>"server costs" (Google Cloud) is an affordable $450 million per year That's interesting. I was curious how their choice to use Google App Engine would work out. It's reputation is easy to start with but expensive to run and some other issues. https://www.recode.net/2017/3/1/14661126/snap-snapchat-ipo-s... I wonder if they would have done better with a stack like WhatsApp - Erlang running on their own servers. Or eve…
It's funny, a lot of people think you exit AWS/GCE to rack your own machines, but I was on a datacenter tour in SV a few years back and was reminded that having fine-grained control of your network is just as a big a reason to do it. Adtech/finance do this all the time to control latency, I imagine it's also a consideration for Snap.
I wonder if they'll ever build a CDN. It's probably not the right traffic pattern without a lot of re-sharing, but still, I could see it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can only imagine being frightened by this if I held a large stake in Google. Do you have a different reason?
Google sends you to other websites, Facebook tends to keep you within their walled garden/echo chamber. Now, I am not saying google is the perfect answer, but I consider it a hell of a lot better than facebook.
Maybe that's what it is. "Quality content" and "Facebook" in the same sentence sounds absurd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just out of curiosity, what kinds of things can a startup do to avoid being copied and killed out of the gate by Facebook? Poison pill? Patent?
I'll indulge. When Facebook seriously have you in their sights, financially, the smart move is what Snap did: rush for IPO before your numbers start getting affected. Product-wise it appears that if Facebook make a billion dollar offer, accepting it is a wise choice to maximise usage growth and interaction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just out of curiosity, what kinds of things can a startup do to avoid being copied and killed out of the gate by Facebook? Poison pill? Patent?
Sell out when they offer you $3bn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sell out when they offer you $3bn.
Seriously, though. I never understood why Groupon, Snap, etc. turn down these multi-billion dollar acquisition offers. It's not like these products/services have a huge impact on the world (if they were to disappear, who would really care?), take the money and run.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can only imagine being frightened by this if I held a large stake in Google. Do you have a different reason?
Google sends you to other websites, Facebook tends to keep you within their walled garden/echo chamber. Now, I am not saying google is the perfect answer, but I consider it a hell of a lot better than facebook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google sends you to other websites, Facebook tends to keep you within their walled garden/echo chamber. Now, I am not saying google is the perfect answer, but I consider it a hell of a lot better than facebook.
This. I don't know if the parent was asking a serious question or trolling, but my response is an "anti-Facebook" one, not a "pro-Google" one. Facebook has demonstrated that it is willing to exert much more editorial control, and is much more interested in "controlling your experience". Google seems focused on attempting to provide you with the most quality content that addresses your query. Maybe that's what it is.…
Google also linking to the web after ads or their own stuff is a benefit over FB of course. But I don't see that being Google's focus.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Facebook has 18 percent increase year over year. They have ~2B users. That's nearly 2/3 of people on the planet with Internet connections, according to estimates by the ITU (approx 3B internet users by the end of 2016) [0]. Even if I believed that user figure, which I dont, there is no way Facebook can grow at the same rate for much longer. [0] http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFa...
You and I both. Facebook numbers have been a scam for a long time. I look at most social media as I look at multilevel marketing... it's all sunshine and rainbows until it simply collapses. There are no 100 year businesses in social.