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

Facebook acquires Instagram

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 394 posts

Re: Facebook acquires Instagram

#131

Post by brezina »

freehunter wrote: post #107
homosaur wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube is a content paradise though. There's tons of value there and you can sell ads against it or even charge for premium services. Where's the money in Instagram? The content is practically worthless and their only real value is in their userbase. Even though I use the Instagram client, most of the time I see photos, they come through Twitter. So that also reinforces for me that any value is in the users and not…

Facebook currently has very limited editing for their pictures. By acquiring a well-known and talented company, Facebook can roll this into their current offerings. I would be very skeptical that this was a user-driven move. I can't imagine a large percentage of Instagram users who are not also Facebook users, even if people posted a lot of Instagrams to Twitter.

its not about new users. it is about engaging their existing users on a new platform - mobile. Pretty sure instagram mobile crushes facebook mobile in engagement

Re: Facebook acquires Instagram

#132

Post by brezina »

freehunter wrote: post #107
homosaur wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube is a content paradise though. There's tons of value there and you can sell ads against it or even charge for premium services. Where's the money in Instagram? The content is practically worthless and their only real value is in their userbase. Even though I use the Instagram client, most of the time I see photos, they come through Twitter. So that also reinforces for me that any value is in the users and not…

Facebook currently has very limited editing for their pictures. By acquiring a well-known and talented company, Facebook can roll this into their current offerings. I would be very skeptical that this was a user-driven move. I can't imagine a large percentage of Instagram users who are not also Facebook users, even if people posted a lot of Instagrams to Twitter.

its not about new users. it is about engaging their existing users on a new platform - mobile. Pretty sure instagram mobile crushes facebook mobile in engagement

Re: Facebook acquires Instagram

#133

Post by tptacek »

huggyface wrote: post #122
tptacek wrote: post #103

This seems ominous for Google, which spent $12.5bn for Motorola to stake a shaky claim in mobile and lord knows how much on G+; after this, what's left for them to do to stake a claim on social mobile? Buy Twitter? What else do people do socially with their phones? Totally possible for Google to sink tens of billions into mobile and still wind up on the bottom of the value chain, commoditized along one axis by Facebo…

Utterly outmarketed by Apple? What a curious take that is, though it is a natural statement when you're so desperate to try to drag Google into this. Instagram is a tool that has a limited shelf-life, with a userbase that is almost certainly already on Facebook. Declaring this some sort of coup for Facebook seems weird, given that the overwhelming sentiment is that Facebook has more net worth than brains at this poin…

Apple takes 75 cents out of every dollar of profit in mobile.

The second graf isn't worth responding to. I'm not as emotional about tech companies as you seem to be.

Re: Facebook acquires Instagram

#134

Post by hackerbob »

marcamillion wrote: post #96
Toddward wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite a jump from the $500 million valuation they were shooting for last week[1]. [1] http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/08/no-filter-required-instagra...

I think the mere fact that they just raised $50M @ $500M valuation is the reason that this price is so high. Those investors in that round had to at least double their money...if the price was indeed $1B, that's all they did. Just 2X. Although, the argument can be made that a 2X return in 1 - 2 months isn't bad...but then again, VC funds don't have a 2 month life, so over the long-term value (i.e. 10 years most-times…

I would like someone to sit me down, and explain the economics of why accept a buyout immediately after raising. And NOT the part of accepting $1 Billon. But why they closed a round with a buyout just around the corner.

Re: Facebook acquires Instagram

#135

Post by untog »

tptacek wrote: post #103

This seems ominous for Google, which spent $12.5bn for Motorola to stake a shaky claim in mobile and lord knows how much on G+; after this, what's left for them to do to stake a claim on social mobile? Buy Twitter? What else do people do socially with their phones? Totally possible for Google to sink tens of billions into mobile and still wind up on the bottom of the value chain, commoditized along one axis by Facebo…

This seems ominous for Google, which spent $12.5bn for Motorola to stake a shaky claim in mobile

I was under the impression that Google paid that price (and, indeed, bought Motorola at all) for patents.

Google is doing just fine out of Android. iOS may be better marketed, but there are a hell of a lot more Android phones out there.

Re: Facebook acquires Instagram

#137

Post by emehrkay »

amirhhz wrote: post #83
kylec wrote: post #18

Some of you might find this useful: https://instagram.com/accounts/remove/request/

When I read the headline I thought two things: a) Wow, the Instagram guys deserve it, congrats to them. b) I need to delete my account. The second point is because I have been actively trying to avoid giving fb more data than absolutely necessary. No ill will towards Instagram.

Yes. I JUST deleted (deactivated/request removal) my FaceBook account over the weekend.

Re: Facebook acquires Instagram

#138

Post by marcamillion »

Toddward wrote: post #127
marcamillion wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the mere fact that they just raised $50M @ $500M valuation is the reason that this price is so high. Those investors in that round had to at least double their money...if the price was indeed $1B, that's all they did. Just 2X. Although, the argument can be made that a 2X return in 1 - 2 months isn't bad...but then again, VC funds don't have a 2 month life, so over the long-term value (i.e. 10 years most-times…

I haven't been able to find anything anywhere that says they actually closed that round - merely that they were looking to raise money at that valuation. EDIT: Open mouth, insert foot: http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/09/right-before-acquisition-in...

Techcrunch just confirmed it - http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/09/right-before-acquisition-in...

Re: Facebook acquires Instagram

#139

Post by tptacek »

untog wrote: post #135
tptacek wrote: post #103

This seems ominous for Google, which spent $12.5bn for Motorola to stake a shaky claim in mobile and lord knows how much on G+; after this, what's left for them to do to stake a claim on social mobile? Buy Twitter? What else do people do socially with their phones? Totally possible for Google to sink tens of billions into mobile and still wind up on the bottom of the value chain, commoditized along one axis by Facebo…

This seems ominous for Google, which spent $12.5bn for Motorola to stake a shaky claim in mobile I was under the impression that Google paid that price (and, indeed, bought Motorola at all) for patents. Google is doing just fine out of Android. iOS may be better marketed, but there are a hell of a lot more Android phones out there.

The game is scored in profit. Revenue and market share matters only as a means to the end of securing profits. Android has a huge market share (and, dearly bought), but even 1st & Goal doesn't matter unless you actually score.

I don't keep super close track, so maybe Apple's commanding profit share lead is eroding sharply. Last I checked, "commanding" was indeed the word for it.

Again, all I'm saying is that you can spend a lot of money for a huge footprint in the market and still find yourself at the bottom of the value chain: you can be the guys facilitating a lot of commerce for other people without taking a significant cut.

If you don't believe Google cares about that, why are they wasting their time with G+? Facebook isn't going to be a search engine. Nobody believes that. The worry is that Facebook is going to commoditize search by moving the profits it generates somewhere else.

Re: Facebook acquires Instagram

#140

Post by acgourley »

homosaur wrote: post #86
inmygarage wrote: post #62

This is very reminiscent of Google/YouTube circa 2006. When Google bought YT it was a small team of people and a pretty nascent product that people really loved, and the usage numbers were out of control. They left the product mostly untouched and let it grow on its own. Though there was major criticism at the time, it is one of the best tech acquisitions of the past decade.

YouTube is a content paradise though. There's tons of value there and you can sell ads against it or even charge for premium services. Where's the money in Instagram? The content is practically worthless and their only real value is in their userbase. Even though I use the Instagram client, most of the time I see photos, they come through Twitter. So that also reinforces for me that any value is in the users and not…

I doubt you, or anyone else, was saying that then youtube was purchased. It merely looked popular.

It turns out what Google was buying was a chance to maintain their lead in how people were going to use their computers.

Facebook is now buying a chance to maintain their lead with how people are going to use their phones.

Post reply on HN