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

Snap falls to IPO price

usatoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 253 posts

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#201

Post by tristanj »

Inconel wrote: post #168
tristanj wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None revenue, just users. Based off their MAUs, if Messenger was an independent chat app they would fetch such valuation. I peg them at $40/user, which isn't so crazy considering WhatsApp was purchased at $35/user and Instagram at $30/user. When Facebook Messenger gets around to copying WeChat (the whole payments and official accounts ecosystem) I expect them to rake in merchant fees for big profit. WhatsApp presentl…

Speaking of FB Messenger/WhatsApp getting around to copying WeChat, what's taking them so long? Are the US, or non-China, markets simply not ready to embrace a WeChat style all encompassing app? Full disclosure, I've never used either FB Messenger or WeChat, but I do use WhatsApp, so I'm just basing this on what I hear.

I think it just takes a long time. Messenger is already trying to emulate WeChat, they are just not there yet. I believe Messenger is the only app in the world that's positioned to match WeChat's ecosystem. They've been copying WeChat over the past few years. They copied the voice message feature (very popular in china), QR contact scanning, Games, Mini-apps (Messenger bots), and Wallet (Facebook Pay). Other features that come to mind are stickers/sticker packs and "stories", although those were copied from several companies at once.

On market opposition, I think the biggest obstacle are the payment vendors, specifically Visa and Mastercard. Alipay and WeChat wallet had an easy time taking off because they weren't competing against credit cards. Visa makes so much money in its present rent-seeking market position they have no incentive to innovate.

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#202

Post by sjg007 »

capkutay wrote: post #40
likpok wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook was profitable before it went public, and faced serious strategic challenges immediately post IPO (specifically, mobile was exploding and Facebook's mobile story was not good -- it didn't even have advertising). I guess the meaningfulness of this data point is that people are dubious that SNAP will succeed long term. But that's somewhat tautological: if people thought SNAP would succeed, they'd buy it.

Facebook's mobile story 'was not good'...but it was clearly just a missing set of features in a product that was ripe for infiltrating mobile and they had the cash to buy to eventually buy instagram. The question is whether Snapchat is fundamentally flawed or a few features away from becoming a strong company. It just seems to me that they have too much competition against Facebook...a behemoth that's still innovatin…

Alexa amazon is the next gen search.

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#203

Post by sjg007 »

jnisenbom wrote: post #97
skywhopper wrote: post #7

As skeptical as I am that Snap will ever be a moneymaker, this data point is not meaningful in any way. Facebook traded below (often _well_ below) its IPO price for the first 15 months on the market.

As of 2015 YouTube reportedly hadn't turned a profit but was breaking even [1, 2]. If the world's number 2 website's business model wasn't turning profits after 9 years... we can probably expect the same for snap. Definitely makes you wonder about the viability of the ad revenue model. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-f... [2] http://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-still-doesnt-make-goo.…

It's an evolving market. TV / apps / video are all converging. You can look at the first 10 years of YouTube as customer acquisition. It's a long game. Snap is likely similar as is twitter. This realtime private zeitgeist.

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#204

Post by kgwgk »

chimeracoder wrote: post #114
davidw wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are quite literally setting the prices of IPO's though, by fiat, and not via an auction or some other market-oriented mechanism. I have no opinion about actual 'collusion' but the mechanism looks pretty bad seen from afar.

> They are quite literally setting the prices of IPO's though, by fiat, and not via an auction or some other market-oriented mechanism. Er, no, it's literally set by an auction (the auction occurring between the different banks who can underwrite the IPO). A bank that is consistently able to predict the IPO opening-bell price better than the others, or is willing to accept a slightly smaller cut than the others, will…

> the auction occurring between the different banks who can underwrite the IPO

What do you mean? Do you have a reference?

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#205

Post by chillacy »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #180
gdilla wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's not the appeal. Snapchat is coveted by it's users because of ephemerality. It grew in reaction to your parents being on fb; in reaction to public, permanent social communication. The users love it because they think it's more authentic - that they're not rehearsing for a contrived selfie or food porn. It's cool cuz they're shooting the shit and not going for likes, and no one outside their sphere is gonna see…

Everything you said other than ephemerality applies to every other messaging platform, including Facebook Messenger. How does ephemerality help you shoot the shit better than a text message?

I believe FB messenger now has secret/disappearing messages as a response to snapchat, but before that it was a pretty clear distinction: if I send you a goofy selfie on snapchat it's gone in 10 seconds. If I send you a goofy selfie on messenger, you could always scroll up to see it again. And share it with others if you so choose.

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#206

Post by chillacy »

rb666 wrote: post #177
gdilla wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's not the appeal. Snapchat is coveted by it's users because of ephemerality. It grew in reaction to your parents being on fb; in reaction to public, permanent social communication. The users love it because they think it's more authentic - that they're not rehearsing for a contrived selfie or food porn. It's cool cuz they're shooting the shit and not going for likes, and no one outside their sphere is gonna see…

So, like a WhatsApp group basically? Being able to send photos to a specific subset of your contacts?

It's whatsapp if the photos disappeared in 10 seconds so that nobody could save copies of unrehearsed (but I'd argue genuine) moments.

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#207

Post by gdilla »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #180
gdilla wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's not the appeal. Snapchat is coveted by it's users because of ephemerality. It grew in reaction to your parents being on fb; in reaction to public, permanent social communication. The users love it because they think it's more authentic - that they're not rehearsing for a contrived selfie or food porn. It's cool cuz they're shooting the shit and not going for likes, and no one outside their sphere is gonna see…

Everything you said other than ephemerality applies to every other messaging platform, including Facebook Messenger. How does ephemerality help you shoot the shit better than a text message?

Ya, you're not getting it. First, a transcript of your communication is not desirable to many (if you find this puzzling, it's because you're old :P). Second, FB Messenger or any chat client you have to manage the groups (forget it).

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#208

Post by skewart »

Inconel wrote: post #161
skewart wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the product and strategic path they're on the only thing they can do to create value is restart user growth. Their business model depends on them becoming a powerful brand advertising platform (brand advertising is when companies want to spread general awareness of their brands and influence the public's overall impressions of what a company stands for, even if it is far removed from any actual moment of purcha…

Your comment seems very well thought out. Can you expand a bit on why you think Snap would actually be worse at building a random new product than any other startup or big company?

Thanks! That's nice to hear.

From what I can see, there are three reasons why they are in a worse position to create a new, successful product than any other startup or big company.

1. They are already pretty big and successful. It's extremely hard for companies to really shift focus unless they're truly desperate. Opportunities that are great in the long term usually seem painfully small, or impossibly distant, in the short term, and it's hard to attract and motivate talent internally to these projects.

2. They seem overly confident. This is annecdotal, but they do seem to have a culture that breeds and rewards a bit of cockiness. That doesn't bode well for them rewarding people who push a humbler view of the company and empathize deeply with new kinds of users.

3. Their grand vision isn't very good, and that likely reveals a deeper lack of understanding about life and human nature. From what I understand, their guiding mission is roughly to help people share experiences in real time and more or less live in the moment. The thing is, most people don't want to share all that much of their lives with many people - most people want to escape their own lives most of the time. And for those who do want to share, there are many different more or less equally good ways to do it. Snapchat's core functionality is easily comoditized. There's no benefit to scale for Snap's users, given the company's vision. Yet they don't seem to realize that or care. And that's a critical mistake. It doesn't exactly build confidence in their ability to execute.

That said, the fact that they see themselves as a camera company does bode well. I suspect we will be a much more camera-centric culture in five or twenty years than most people think. And their playfulness is a great way to overcome the creepiness of cameras. They may end up in the right place at the right time to ride that wave.

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#209

Post by kinsho »

skewart wrote: post #208
Inconel wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment seems very well thought out. Can you expand a bit on why you think Snap would actually be worse at building a random new product than any other startup or big company?

Thanks! That's nice to hear. From what I can see, there are three reasons why they are in a worse position to create a new, successful product than any other startup or big company. 1. They are already pretty big and successful. It's extremely hard for companies to really shift focus unless they're truly desperate. Opportunities that are great in the long term usually seem painfully small, or impossibly distant, in t…

Regarding your third point....are you sure about that? I feel that many people do want to share the interesting moments (more or less) of their life online. If this wasn't true, Instagram wouldn't be such a popular platform and a threat to Snapchat.

That being said, I'm bearish on Snapchat, at least in the short term. I don't see much opportunity for growth, not unless it manages to capture the hearts and minds of the next budding wave of teens.

Re: Snap falls to IPO price

#210

Post by daveFNbuck »

chillacy wrote: post #205
daveFNbuck wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything you said other than ephemerality applies to every other messaging platform, including Facebook Messenger. How does ephemerality help you shoot the shit better than a text message?

I believe FB messenger now has secret/disappearing messages as a response to snapchat, but before that it was a pretty clear distinction: if I send you a goofy selfie on snapchat it's gone in 10 seconds. If I send you a goofy selfie on messenger, you could always scroll up to see it again. And share it with others if you so choose.

I guess the part I'm missing is why you care whether the goofy selfie disappears.
Post reply on HN