Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that exactly OP's point? FB might have counterfactually opted to bury Instagram rather than drop tres comas buying it. Conceivably this could have cost x < $1b. In that world, Zuck is a fool for wasting $1b - x dollars, rather than the one we live in where he's hailed as a visionary for making $99b off the deal.
Could FB sell now for ~100B and then still proceed to bury it for $x?
Instagram Is Estimated to Be Worth More Than $100B
351–360 of 394 posts
Re: Instagram Is Estimated to Be Worth More Than $100B
#352Hell of an acquisition by Zuckerberg
Probably the best tech acquisition of all time. It's either that or YouTube. I guess you could argue for Apple acquiring NeXT, but that's an acquisition that isn't really able to be measured in the same way.
Re: Instagram Is Estimated to Be Worth More Than $100B
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe all that would do is make wealth or extreme tolerance for poverty a requirement to become an artist.
I think artist will have to focus more on cultivating a strong fanbase globally and leverage it for merchandise and live performances. There is lots of money to be made being an idol.
Re: Instagram Is Estimated to Be Worth More Than $100B
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd feel bad for the employees who took unnecessary dilution less than a week before instagram was bought by facebook. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/instagram#section-lo...
Wow can you read this for me? I dont get it
The link I pasted simply had a list of Instagram's financing rounds.
April 5th, 2012, Series B $50m
April 9th, 2012 Purchased by FB, $1b
Several days before being acquired by Facebook, Instagram raised a $50m Series B on a $500m premoney evaluation, which gave investors 10% of the company.
Typically in order to grant 10% worth of preferred stock for a raise, the company has to increase the number of shares. If there were 100 shares prior to the raise, and a had 1, I would have 1/100 or 1%. If there are now 110 shares, and I still have 1, it's now 1/110 or A few days later, the company was sold for $1b.
1/100 * 1b = $10,000,000
1/110 * 1b = $9,090,000
In my contrived example about dilution, with my 1/110%, I lost out ~$1m, and for seemingly no benefit to the company.
Bringing it back to my original comment, employees as a collective, would have lost out significant money, for seemingly no benefit, while Sequoia benefited tremendously.
I should caveat my post:
--This is pure speculation on a number of fronts. Any number of scenarios could be true (even if unlikely)
* IG could have had 10% shares already allocated in reserve for a Series B, and never had to issue more. Employees would still in effect lose out on money, but not because of dilution.
* With that $50m in cash, IG could have paid out hefty bonuses to employees. IIRC at the time of acquisition IG had ~19 people.
* IG could have issued anti-dilution to everyone, keeping relative % near the same.
* The SeriesB may have had to happen in order for Sequoia to agree to the sale.
Re: Instagram Is Estimated to Be Worth More Than $100B
#355Re: Instagram Is Estimated to Be Worth More Than $100B
#356For reference this is about one-third of the value of Bank of America, the largest bank in the country. I wonder.
Re: Instagram Is Estimated to Be Worth More Than $100B
#357Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Spotify allows consumers to binge on music for a flat fee, however it is crucial to note that the musicians in this case significantly lose out on revenue. As a side note, it amuses me to see this repeated so often, given that it's not true. If you do the math, Spotify pays about the same as a radio play. You just have to remember that each radio play goes out to a few hundred thousand to a few million people each…
> The reason artists don't like Spotify is not because they pay poorly, it's because they pay fairly. This is not true IMHO. You need approximately 4 million plays per month to get the equivalent of Californian minimum wage! [1] [1] https://mashable.com/2018/01/31/copyright-court-rules-stream... Edit: You might get might more if you own all the rights yourself but not many artists do.
Re: Instagram Is Estimated to Be Worth More Than $100B
#358I've long had a theory (maybe it's not that revolutionary) that part of Instagram's success is it allowed people a free pass to be vain and show off-y. On Facebook, it was a bit stigmatized to post a picture of an expensive purchase, amazing house interior, fancy vacation, or workout picture of your physique. However, it's the entire point of Instagram. Couple that in with all the brands and other accounts of inspira…
http://charlescosta.net/2014/04/how-the-seven-deadly-sins-dr... tl;dr — Every successful social startup should bend, but not completely violate, one or more social taboos, e.g. one of the 7 deadly sins. Edit: When designing www.fwdeveryone.com, we purposely incorporated Pav's theory by building the platform around the taboo of getting involved in other people's relationships, in this case by letting people read (and…
Re: Instagram Is Estimated to Be Worth More Than $100B
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe all that would do is make wealth or extreme tolerance for poverty a requirement to become an artist.
I think artist will have to focus more on cultivating a strong fanbase globally and leverage it for merchandise and live performances. There is lots of money to be made being an idol.
Re: Instagram Is Estimated to Be Worth More Than $100B
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it way less intrusive than other forms of ad placements (TV, radio, billboards). Talk about damming with faint praise. Ads are the top reason why I no longer listen to radio, and the TV is only bearable because I have a DVR. That said, those are just annoying. Online ads are much more dangerous.
Why are they much more dangerous?