Facebook Buying WhatsApp for $16B in Cash and Stock Plus $3B in RSUs

Post by Pxtl » Thu, Feb 20, 2014, 1:45 AM UTC

sentenza wrote: post #468

myzerox wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because of network effects. (I'm not going to switch to the 2nd best app where I can only reach 10% of my friends.)

But the network effects are still there if you have an interoperable standard. You can use _any_ app that supports the standard and still connect to everybody in the social network. There is no reason why the social network of mankind should remain captured in the userbase of a single messaging app. And it is the abstract social network that does provide the network effects.

Post by lsc » Thu, Feb 20, 2014, 1:46 AM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #482

lsc wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>that will allow every person to have an IP address for every device they have and retain that perpetually. Wait... what? has someone implemented IP address portability while I wasn't looking? I mean, there was lots of talk a few years back, but my understanding is that the facts on the ground are such that when you switch ISPs, well, you are switching your IPv6 address (unless you are large enough to speak BGP)

OK, yes, "retain continuity of addressability for every device" then - you'll need something at your end to push a signed notification out indicating your IP address change but there's no reason that can't be seamless like texting your contacts a new phone number but without any interaction needed.

Post by n1ghtmare_ » Thu, Feb 20, 2014, 1:48 AM UTC

hackinthebochs wrote: post #184

nwh wrote: post #60

400,000,000 active users [0] 16,000,000,000 USD ---- $40 per user That's an incredible cost. We can assume Facebook is paying for the userbase, the app itself and it's infrastructure would basically run itself. It's less appealing when you realise that there's probably a miniscule fraction of WhatsApp users that don't have a Facebook account. > WhatsApp will remain autonomous and operate independently. You can contin…

I conjecture that this price is a reflection of the fact that facebook realizes their stock is way overvalued, and so they used this opportunity to make a huge purchase which would be too expensive otherwise. The fact that a huge amount of the purchase price in stock is a strong signal for this. These same sorts of deals happened in the first internet bubble (although this is clearly different as there is also a huge…

Post by shortsightedsid » Thu, Feb 20, 2014, 1:51 AM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #405

pitchups wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty amazing that this is precisely what Microsoft paid for Hotmail in 1998 : $400 million for 10 million users = $40 / User. [1] The parallels are striking : Whatsapp is to messaging today what Hotmail was to messaging in the late '90s. [1] http://news.cnet.com/2100-1033-206717.html

I'll admit to a distinct feeling, that I've started to lose touch with pop technology. I've never heard of WhatsApp. Though I had most definitely heard of Hotmail in 1998.

Post by adventured » Thu, Feb 20, 2014, 1:52 AM UTC

sentenza wrote: post #462

bedhead wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have two additional and unrelated thoughts on this. First, the astonishing price paid is a very tangible indictment on the management of Facebook, and Zuckerberg especially. Combine this $19 billion with the Snapchat offer and Instagram, and it's clear that Facebook is looking frighteningly like Microsoft, which is to say a behemoth of a company that seems to flat-out miss every next big thing. I can't even imagine…

Something's fishy though. Compare these acquisition numbers to the numbers that float in more "money-prone" parts of the software business. For instance, I've never heared of that kind of money being thrown around regarding the suppliers of software that banks and traders use. It's not that a revolutionary social service shouldn't be worth billions, but What's App is messaging. And messaging in the long term could ju…