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

Twilio S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 229 posts

Re: Twilio S-1

#131

Post by sulam »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #118
Kliment wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Developer mindshare is sticky though - much more so than monopolies (fragile, disruptible, unless protected by law).

Your developers usually don't pay the bills, and CFOs are always looking for cheaper options that are just as good. Mindshare is silly in a commoditized space.

Exactly. I didn't mention Rackspace idly -- they used to have huge developer mindshare back in the day. Didn't save them, and it won't save Twilio if they can't find something truly sticky to keep people on their platform.

Re: Twilio S-1

#132

Post by andyfleming »

I'm surprised all of these comments are so negative. Yeah, maybe there are some things that don't quite add up yet, but they have great developer engagement, solid services, and are actually innovating in the space. Twilio is a winner. When or how much is another question.

Re: Twilio S-1

#133

Post by stemuk »

hexalisk wrote: post #83
markolschesky wrote: post #12

Had no idea that WhatsApp was even a Twilio customer let alone one of its largest. >We currently generate significant revenue from WhatsApp and the loss of WhatsApp could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition. >In 2013, 2014 and 2015 and the three months ended March 31, 2016, WhatsApp accounted for 11%, 13%, 17% and 15% of our revenue, respectively. WhatsApp uses our Programmable Voice prod…

Yes, this is fascinating. I can only imagine that as more and more developers flock to "free" SMS verification services provided by companies like Facebook (Account Kit) and Twitter (Digits), their long term outlook is even more unsure.

Could you share a link to the Firebase SMS verification you stated in your comment? Was actually looking for something like this... :D

Re: Twilio S-1

#135

Post by bcruddy »

Shivetya wrote: post #119
breaker05 wrote: post #3

Good for them! I love their service and use it on GoatAttack.com

okay, I am still laughing and yes I used it just now. Still how do places like yours actually get the word out?

We got pretty big about a year ago when we posted it to /r/internetisbeautiful (mods took it down after about an hour since it requires a phone number and that's "personal info"). From there, @thepacketrat from Arstechnica picked it up and ran a story and it just sort of exploded from there for a couple days. At the peak of it's popularity we were on Ars, Business Insider, the front page of Mashable, and a handful of other outlets I can't remember off the top of my head.

Re: Twilio S-1

#136

Post by jedberg »

robbiemitchell wrote: post #81
markolschesky wrote: post #12

Had no idea that WhatsApp was even a Twilio customer let alone one of its largest. >We currently generate significant revenue from WhatsApp and the loss of WhatsApp could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition. >In 2013, 2014 and 2015 and the three months ended March 31, 2016, WhatsApp accounted for 11%, 13%, 17% and 15% of our revenue, respectively. WhatsApp uses our Programmable Voice prod…

I suspect this will be painful to Twilio in a couple years. If you think anything like WeChat and its service ecosystem is coming to the rest of the world, it's going to happen on Facebook (or Telegram), not WhatsApp.

Facebook owns Whatsapp. Anything that happens on Facebook will be in conjunction with Whatsapp.

Re: Twilio S-1

#137

Post by superuser2 »

shaqbert wrote: post #107
Animats wrote: post #75

There's a lot there not to like: Revenue: $166,919,000 Net Loss: $38,896,000 So they're still not profitable. This is surprising, since they don't have any big capital investments. They're not doing anything that takes a lot of R&D. The thing runs on Amazon AWS. They've been operating for years and should be profitable by now. Yes, they're growing fast, but the costs don't rise in advance of the growth. You don't hav…

Net loss: Don't think that is a biggie. They expanded their cost base both in R&D, sales & marketing, and general and admin. With a little bit of cost discipline for one year, they are going to be profitable. Voting rights: that is indeed yucky. Competitive threat: Not really. The inertia for existing customers is high, especially since the average revenue per active account is about $580/month. For a big company, th…

>a little bit of cost discipline for one year

So, layoffs?

Re: Twilio S-1

#138

Post by tqi »

Does anyone have recommendations for resources/guides to S-1s (ie what to look for, which sections are usually boilerplate, what is normal/abnormal, etc)?

Re: Twilio S-1

#139

Post by cissou »

mikeyouse wrote: post #129
cissou wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

where do you see that? I don't know how to read those things

Page 143, or ctrl + F for "All executive officers and directors as a group (9 persons)".

it says how much they own, but not how much Jeff cashed out, right?

Re: Twilio S-1

#140

Post by tommynicholas »

antoniuschan99 wrote: post #87
Animats wrote: post #75

There's a lot there not to like: Revenue: $166,919,000 Net Loss: $38,896,000 So they're still not profitable. This is surprising, since they don't have any big capital investments. They're not doing anything that takes a lot of R&D. The thing runs on Amazon AWS. They've been operating for years and should be profitable by now. Yes, they're growing fast, but the costs don't rise in advance of the growth. You don't hav…

I don't understand this. Is it a land-grab focus? Why do so many software companies focus solely on growth? A traditional business with $166 million in revenue is huge. Why are investors not asking for a return on their investments already? Don't investors usually look for a return on their investments within 2-3 years?

>Don't investors usually look for a return on their investments within 2-3 years?

no

Post reply on HN