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

Facebook is not worth $33 billion

37signals.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 266 posts

Re: Facebook is not worth $33 billion

#231

Post by portman »

toolate wrote: post #229
portman wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as someone who has spent $30,000 on Facebook ads in the last several months: Facebook advertising is fantastically targeted as well. Google ads work when there is so-called "purchase intent": I know I want a new waffle maker, so I search for it. Facebook ads work when there is demographic correlation: I just got engaged, and I might not know that I now need a waffle maker, but a Facebook ad can target me and…

So you're the one putting all those wedding ads on my Facebook page. I hate you.

Congratulations on your engagement!

And seriously. Waffle maker. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

Re: Facebook is not worth $33 billion

#232

Post by jkratz »

scottymac wrote: post #183
spolsky wrote: post #5

I hate to leap in with what seems like an ad-hominem attack on the 37 signals, but their utter and complete misunderstanding of all the basics of business is starting to grate on me, and I'm wondering if it has anything to do with Chicago. Is the problem that they're sitting there in a city without any other Internet industry, stewing in their own witty ideas, listening only to the adoring comments they get from the…

On behalf of Groupon.com Orbitz.com Feedburner.com CareerBuilder.com TicketsNow.com Peapod.com Apartments.com Restaurant.com ShopLocal.com Legacy.com GrubHub.com EveryBlock.com Apoolicious.com Threadless.com Newser.com Songza.com ViewPoints.com Timelines.com SitterCity.com BlockShopper.com CarePages.com SurePayroll.com OneWed.com ...and many other Chicago-based internet companies Fuck off.

You forgot cars.com, viewpoints.com, and navteq ;) Clearly no internet here. Oh...and no financial companies either (I wont start a list of the many)

Re: Facebook is not worth $33 billion

#234

Post by code_duck »

far33d wrote: post #142
paul wrote: post #91

I bet it's worth more than that.

Facebook is one of the few companies in the world with unbounded potential. It's a cultural phenomenon that has changed the way people use the internet and, more importantly, has changed the way people interact with their real friends. Very few companies change culture and daily interaction like this. Is it worth $33b today? Not sure. Could it be worth $200b someday? Could Facebook be bigger than Microsoft? Bigger th…

I've heard this same thing about AOL, MySpace, etc. and really, who knows. People who have come to the internet and use nothing but Facebook will discover there are actually other sites out there, or they may get tired of Mafia Wars spam. Someone could create something more innovative. I think Facebook will continue to become more valuable, but they're not going to take over the entire world.

Re: Facebook is not worth $33 billion

#235

Post by code_duck »

pclark wrote: post #51
Andrew_Quentin wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what exactly are they waiting for? They have half a billion users. You know, that is more than America and Russia together, or comparable to the entire population of the geographical Europe. They can only go down hill from here I think. Therefore, personally I certainly would not wait. The truth is really that they do not know how to monetize themselves effectively

No offense but have you taken more companies public than: * Marc Andreessen * Jim Breyer * Peter Thiel because they are some of the directors on the Facebook board, and I think they know their stuff.

I can think of a couple fairly lousy companies associated with at least two of these fine fellows. Their being involved does not say anything about Facebook's potential to make money.

Re: Facebook is not worth $33 billion

#236

Post by cromulent »

irahul wrote: post #78
edw519 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird, it's like in Chicago they don't have multiplication or something. Oh, and New York smells. (take that!) Two of my heroes dragging discourse on hacker news into the toilet. What's the world coming to?

Both of them have some insights worth pondering, but the attacks are kinda negatively overshadowing the discussion. Joel really shouldn't have started the Chicago hyperbole. Do they have some history or it's just impulsive?

http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2159-all-the-wrong-reasons-fo...

Re: Facebook is not worth $33 billion

#237

Post by codexon »

mnemonicsloth wrote: post #116
spolsky wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2. That's just not correct. Spend twenty minutes talking to anyone who trades in bonds or equity before you make assumptions about what liquidity you need to get a good price... it's not much. Facebook trades all the time on sharespost, certainly enough to be liquid and to reach a market price. Google itself only has a tiny fraction of the shares available to the public (10% if I remember correctly) and far less than…

Uh, Joel, have you bought any Facebook stock on Sharespost? Valuing Facebook just by the market price on Sharespost is like predicting the outcome of an election when only 1% of the votes have been counted. Maybe those votes are a representative sampling, maybe not. I'm inclined to think not, because you have to be an accredited investor, ie already wealthy, to buy pre-IPO shares. Facebook's investors are there for t…

I'm inclined to think not, because you have to be an accredited investor

You "only" need $1 million in net assets (minus the house due to recent law I believe) to be an accredited investor. I would really be surprised if Joel didn't have at least that much.

Re: Facebook is not worth $33 billion

#239

Post by ddebernardy »

spolsky wrote: post #41
dhh wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Thanks for the word correction, updated. 2. Publicly traded companies have instant liquidity on many more shares, which makes using "last share sold" an meaningful metric. 3. When only 3% of the money a company is supposedly worth has been moved around, it's a poor indicator of what the other 97% would go for. 4. They haven't figured out how to make much profit yet. And it's still questionable whether they will. M…

2. That's just not correct. Spend twenty minutes talking to anyone who trades in bonds or equity before you make assumptions about what liquidity you need to get a good price... it's not much. Facebook trades all the time on sharespost, certainly enough to be liquid and to reach a market price. Google itself only has a tiny fraction of the shares available to the public (10% if I remember correctly) and far less than…

2.

You need some amount of liquidity to make a meaningful valuation. Lack of liquidity leads to price volatility. Think May 6 flash crash.

Re: Facebook is not worth $33 billion

#240

Post by markdascoli »

spolsky wrote: post #5

I hate to leap in with what seems like an ad-hominem attack on the 37 signals, but their utter and complete misunderstanding of all the basics of business is starting to grate on me, and I'm wondering if it has anything to do with Chicago. Is the problem that they're sitting there in a city without any other Internet industry, stewing in their own witty ideas, listening only to the adoring comments they get from the…

Actually Joel, your assertion that dhh simply needs to look up valuation in the dictionary is absurd. Valuation is not neatly defined. It's hugely subjective -- especially for private companies.

>It's like you wrote a blog post arguing that it is >incorrect to refer to a 5' tall boy as 5' tall because >he's often sitting down.

It's not like that at all. It's more like comparing a 5' tall boy with a 5' tall light pole and deciding that valuation is based on height alone.

>It's weird, it's like in Chicago they don't have multiplication or something.

Yeah, good point.

md

Post reply on HN