Live data from Hacker News

Facebook acquires Instagram

facebook.com

361–370 of 394 posts

Re: Facebook acquires Instagram

#361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I need to delete my account // Surely it's already too late. They bought your data. Why do we allow companies to sell personal data on as part of the company? Should this be legislated against?

What's the alternative?

Not sure but a contact saying "this service is now owned by $company, do you wish to allow your data to be retained". Similar offers could be required whenever contractual terms are altered, the default being to continue service.

That would mean that if a malevolent owner decided to change T&C and sell all your private data youd have a legal recourse with which to stop them.

Personally I think that Opera's browser based server offers a way forward whereby a user would have all their data local and a FB like service would operate as a hub/link - like how bt services are pointers to distributed data.

Re: Facebook acquires Instagram

#362
post #354
post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I was referring to with the greater fool theory is that the investors who put in ~$50 million, for a valuation of ~$500 million thought they'd find a greater fool to sell the company to, to make money off of (since I don't think Instagram could actually earn that money from its userbase), and that greater fool turned out to be Facebook. In turn, Facebook, implicitly assumes that the greater fool from whom they w…

What you call greater fool is just who has more value for Instagram. Instragram is worth more to Facebook than it is to Sequoia because Sequoia don't run a social network with hundreds of millions of users and aren't trying to stop Google from killing their business. If I buy a bathtub from a bathtub warehouse at a 50% markup am I the 'greater fool' or do I just like hot baths? > Because with $1 billion in profits fo…

"And then if it doubles again it becomes 25, and then it becomes 12, and then it becomes 6. only 4 years away to Facebook being a blue chip stock - so all that the 100 PE ratio is telling you is that they do believe that revenue and income will grow pretty quickly over the next few years."

Those are some BIG ifs. I'm going to contrast Google and Facebook to explain why I think Facebook is overvalued.

When Google was in it's fast growth phase, it could perhaps justify a P/E like what Facebook has now - because of the way in which Google makes money. For roughly 1 out of every 14 Google searches, a user clicks a Google ad. As the amount of people on the internet grows, that means the amount of searches grow, meaning the number of ad clicks grows in tandem. Even today, with all the smartphones and tablets and people from the BRICS coming online, Google only has a P/E of 21[1].

Now contrast that with the way in which Facebook makes money. Targeted ads. The revenue they generate doesn't grow in tandem with Facebook's userbase. Granted, the revenue goes up as companies chase the eyeballs, but it seems to be a mixed bag of results selling ads on Facebook, so some companies aren't going to get the results they want and will quit Facebook. People there don't go there primarily to look at products (completely different to many Google searches). And of course some companies will get great results, but the overall point is that there isn't a direct correlation between user growth and revenue growth.

Ah!, you say, but there are other ways for Facebook to make money (off the top of my head):

a) Premium celebrity pages (pay Facebook for a prominent page to get fans)

b) Somehow charge for user accounts, maybe for premium features

c) Selling user data to third parties

d) Zynga etc. profit sharing

e) Others

Maybe they could make some revenue from premium celebrity pages, but not enough to justify a 3-figure P/E, IMO. Charging for premium features would be highly controversial, if they did this it would be a sign of desperation and a complete departure from where they began. They probably will do some form of c at some stage (don't worry, your data is completely anonymised!) but users would probably abandon ship to competitors in droves if they did. They will continue to make money from social gaming, but it's fickle and short-lived, plus Zynga is trying to wean themselves off Facebook to grow their own revenue.

Overall I think they will continue to make billions from ad impressions and social gaming profit sharing, but nowhere near enough to justify a $100bn valuation IMHO. If they bow to Wall Street pressure and really try to squeeze their userbase data for every dime (you could call this 'doing a MySpace', i.e. shooting themselves in the foot), people will leave in droves to the next social hotspot. So it will be 'interesting' to see how they will justify the lofty valuation over the coming years.

[1] http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AGOOG

Re: Facebook acquires Instagram

#363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't the photo service: Facebook. Flickr. Picasa. Imageshack. Twitpic. Imgur... To name a few. Instagram doesn't have more users than Facebook. Hell, it doesn't even have more users than Flickr (51m) or Photobucket (50m). Instagram is a small part of the web photo ecosystem. It's a very peculiar play by Facebook, and not at all comparable to Google & YouTube other than the fact that Google acquired YouTube, and F…

It's probably too late, but if Facebook would like to hedge their bets by seeing if they could make an Instagram workalike & user traction for much much less than $1B -- for say, oh, a mere $1M up front and $9M upon delivery -- I'd be willing to take a shot. One man team. Give me say 2 months absolute tops. I deliver the mobile app, website, backend. Facebook brings the massive user base. Oh wait, again, they could a…

But then Instagram would still exist as an alternative social network for sharing photo's, outside of Facebook's control.

Re: Facebook acquires Instagram

#364

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.

I say follow the money. Things that don't make any sense on the surface often have simple motivations. Someone (perhaps someone affiliated with the Instagram funding round that closed days ago) needed an infusion of cash. Facebook has more cash than they know what to do with.

Re: Facebook acquires Instagram

#365

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…

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.

The money in YouTube is in professional and editorially selected content. Music videos, trailers, some guy crashing a music video audition, etc.

There's almost no room for that kind of content from a photo sharing system.

Re: Facebook acquires Instagram

#366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably too late, but if Facebook would like to hedge their bets by seeing if they could make an Instagram workalike & user traction for much much less than $1B -- for say, oh, a mere $1M up front and $9M upon delivery -- I'd be willing to take a shot. One man team. Give me say 2 months absolute tops. I deliver the mobile app, website, backend. Facebook brings the massive user base. Oh wait, again, they could a…

But then Instagram would still exist as an alternative social network for sharing photo's, outside of Facebook's control.

The assertion is that, for a billion dollars, Facebook should be able to create a significantly better app and market it better (or 'at all') than Instagram do.

Facebook have got 721m users and all the data they need to constitute incredible market research. In twelve months if Facebook couldn't build an app which is competitive to Instagram, and get it installed with ~5.5% of their user-base, I'd be really fucking worried.

Also consider this: Twitter add "Photos" to their filtering options adjacent to "Connect" and "Discover". So you can just click a Photo button and see all your connections' photographs in a stream. Oops, they just went halfway towards creating most people's Instagram experience.

Re: Facebook acquires Instagram

#367
post #35
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like I can safely declare that there is no such thing as a one billion dollar talent acquisition.

Maybe in Zimbabwe, but otherwise, it doesn't seem likely, does it.

Zimbabwe dropped the Zimbabwe dollar in 2009. They now use US dollars.

Re: Facebook acquires Instagram

#368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't come off crass...not to me anyway. I wasn't giving a stock tip. Just stating what I see as the most obvious conclusion. That being said, if I had a net worth of any significant value that wasn't illiquid, I would probably buy FB stock on IPO and hold it for a few years. I can't see why you wouldn't want to. They have not really monetized, they have 800M+ users and they are already doing $1B/profit per year…

I understand when a startup, like Instagram acquiring eyeballs and saying: "we really don't have a business model, but when somebody will acquire us - they surely will figure this out". But when Facebook saying "we didn't really started to monetize our 800M eyeballs, we just waiting for IPO and will figure it's later" - it's sounds silly.

They never said that. It's just their actions. They generate enough cash to sustain themselves and they can grow. They are doing it properly and taking their time.

Just like Twitter is.

You may poo poo it all day, doesn't change the fact that over the long run it works.

Re: Facebook acquires Instagram

#370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the alternative?

Not sure but a contact saying "this service is now owned by $company, do you wish to allow your data to be retained". Similar offers could be required whenever contractual terms are altered, the default being to continue service. That would mean that if a malevolent owner decided to change T&C and sell all your private data youd have a legal recourse with which to stop them. Personally I think that Opera's browser ba…

> if a malevolent owner decided to change T&C

Why not mandate that contact in case of any change of T&C? Owners of any level of malevolence can change those, not just after a sale.

Post reply on HN