I don't know if you know much about Victorian farming techniques, but it was around then that bat guano was discovered to be an excellent fertilizer. This started what amounted to a gold rush, as people set off to make their fortunes from harvesting it. That is the origin of the modern term "batshit crazy". I just mention this apropos of nothing.
Snapchat is Intrinsically Worthless
21–30 of 128 posts
Re: Snapchat is Intrinsically Worthless
#22I don't know if you know much about Victorian farming techniques, but it was around then that bat guano was discovered to be an excellent fertilizer. This started what amounted to a gold rush, as people set off to make their fortunes from harvesting it. That is the origin of the modern term "batshit crazy". I just mention this apropos of nothing.
Not really: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/38354/where-did-t...
I think you may be missing the point I am making. See other recent threads about bubbles.
Re: Snapchat is Intrinsically Worthless
#23I don't know if you know much about Victorian farming techniques, but it was around then that bat guano was discovered to be an excellent fertilizer. This started what amounted to a gold rush, as people set off to make their fortunes from harvesting it. That is the origin of the modern term "batshit crazy". I just mention this apropos of nothing.
My favorite piece of trivia about this time period was the passage of the Guano Island Act in 1865. It allowed US citizens to claim islands with guano deposits to be US territories. Islands claimed under the act were even afforded protection by the US military.
The US is still in possession of a handful of islands claimed under the Act. A few are even still in diplomatic dispute.
Re: Snapchat is Intrinsically Worthless
#24Am I missing something but I always assumed that valuations at this stage of a company is to do with huge/vast sums of money being removed from the table by the founders and they've done this by selling a good stake of their equity/voting rights in their company. The founders are now rich.. but the company isn't.. and if they raise a next round, their true valuation will shine through...
Anytime stock changes hands in exchange for money it's reasonable to use that transaction to value the company. It doesn't matter if it's the company selling a piece of itself or employees selling stock to an investor. Someone is still paying money for ownership.
If anything, employees selling shares probably makes it easier because it's common instead of preferred shares being sold.
Re: Snapchat is Intrinsically Worthless
#25I'll suggest a simpler framework for valuing Snapchat: probability of becoming another Facebook. If you think it has a 5% chance, then it should be valued at around 5 billion (relative to Facebook's 100 billion).
I think it has a negative chance of becoming the next FB.
Re: Snapchat is Intrinsically Worthless
#26People are outraged over being spied on, but can't see the value in an private chat tool? Edit I meant private, not anonymous.
My jailbroken iPhone saves every snapchat that I get without notifying the other party. It also makes all snaps viewable for unlimited time and I can even send snaps of pictures in my camera roll to make it seem as if I took the picture in the moment.
Look up "Phantom". It's a jailbreak tweak for iOS available in Cydia.
Re: Snapchat is Intrinsically Worthless
#27I published an article about Snapchat a couple of days ago. Yes, it is. Snapchat is not a "sustainable business", it's a trend or a bubble. People are using it now, because it's cool; but in a couple of years, there will be another trend and so on. Even if they are still alive after 5 years, the valuation is ridiculous. Entrepreneurship is not about money, but at some point you need to face this problem and have a solution in your pocket. They are worth $4B and they don't have a clue. I guess this is just another groupon. (http://greatpreneurs.com/startups-dilemma-trends-businesses/)
Re: Snapchat is Intrinsically Worthless
#28I'll suggest a simpler framework for valuing Snapchat: probability of becoming another Facebook. If you think it has a 5% chance, then it should be valued at around 5 billion (relative to Facebook's 100 billion).
I think it has a negative chance of becoming the next FB.
Does that mean FB has a chance of becoming the next Snapchat? Now THAT doesn't seem too likely.
Re: Snapchat is Intrinsically Worthless
#29$4bn for an easily replaceable service that is little more than Microsoft Paint duct taped to a disposable camera?
Oh please!
Sure you can recreate the app pretty easily which, you can also do for most services (this does not mean scaling to the users they serve) but that is not the value of the service.
It's also why 'hackers' typically don't make great investors see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863
Re: Snapchat is Intrinsically Worthless
#30A 3.5bn valuation does seem insane for a service like snapchat without any source of revenue. I did read the other day about their extraordinary growth of sent messages however, (up to 350 million a day!)and perhaps it is simply a premium for said growth.
Regardless, I feel that the ephemeral nature of snapchat is likely to reduce long-term user retention. You have no tangible investment into the platform because everything is deleted.