51–60 of 337 posts
This is total bs. $54 million in revenue with an $18 billion valuation? I understand investing in the "future value" of companies, but this shit is getting out of hand, lol.
Their demograph is just graduating high school. They will be very valuable in the future.
Can someone who uses Snapchat routinely tell me why you use it routinely? I've been using it for a few weeks to send a picture or two to the few people I know who use it, but it seems pretty limited. I follow a few "famous" people on it, and they basically just post random images of them walking around NYC or them traveling. I don't yet see the benefit.
Also being able to send a quick video or picture, or do a live video call is nice too...
Most people complaining haven't even used snapchat or know of all its features.
As someone mentioned earlier, it's less intrusive than a call, and gets information across more efficiently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're using it as a business, not what the other 99.9% of people are using it for.
There's a chance then that more people will be using it for that purpose targeting wider audience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more immediate than a text, less intrusive than a call. With a snapchat, you're more likely to open it and respond quickly than a text message, because just like the time limit on images, once the time has passed, the moment is gone. It keeps you hooked in.
Sometimes I worry about a dystopian future of tech where each startup is making small incremental improvements on various minor aspects of life ("It's slightly easier than sending a text!") only to be disrupted by a newcomer with another small improvement on it ("It's even more slightly easier to send than a text than the last startup!"). The big breakthroughs never happen. We just continue to iterate and A/B test ou…
Eventually we increase the ease of texting to the point where we're reading minds and the user never has to touch their phone.
I may be serious, I can't tell.
Can someone who uses Snapchat routinely tell me why you use it routinely? I've been using it for a few weeks to send a picture or two to the few people I know who use it, but it seems pretty limited. I follow a few "famous" people on it, and they basically just post random images of them walking around NYC or them traveling. I don't yet see the benefit.
On facebook you only upload posts/pictures that matter, on Instagram you only upload pictures where you look really good or a picture of food (I personally hate it, unless it's something unique) whereas on snapchat you'll send pictures to friends where it doesn't matter how you look.
People need to stop focusing their criticism on how stupid the app is or how they're going to lose all their users. It's almost a meme by now of how people say this every time Snapchat is brought up. By now it's a foregone conclusion, and requires active ignorance and not really caring to keep an open mind, to continue to hold onto that belief in the face of tremendous evidence that 1) Snapchat is very popular, 2) Sn…
Don't forget that lots of people said Facebook wasn't monetizable either, just a few years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>needing 2 billion They probably don't need 2 billion but can grow faster by making use of this money instead of going for some aggressive monetization. I don't get why everyone acts like Snapchat is unable to monetize the platform — they just don't want to if they don't need to yet.
> I don't get why everyone acts like Snapchat is unable to monetize the platform — they just don't want to if they don't need to yet. I'm not convinced that's true. Reportedly, in 2014 they made 3.1 million in revenue and -128 million in net income [0]. I don't think a difference that's two orders of magnitude is a function of "not wanting" to monetize the platform. I'm convinced they're a [0]: http://gawker.com/snap…
Can someone who uses Snapchat routinely tell me why you use it routinely? I've been using it for a few weeks to send a picture or two to the few people I know who use it, but it seems pretty limited. I follow a few "famous" people on it, and they basically just post random images of them walking around NYC or them traveling. I don't yet see the benefit.
I use snapchat for texting primarily because I can tell the message was read. Can't do that with text messages. Also being able to send a quick video or picture, or do a live video call is nice too... Most people complaining haven't even used snapchat or know of all its features. As someone mentioned earlier, it's less intrusive than a call, and gets information across more efficiently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this what people said about Facebook when they were at this stage? I feel as though that has failed to materialize, and their new demographic is "relatives over 50 desperate to appear 'hip'"
People did say that and they were right. Facebook is currently valued at over $300 billion.
I know that I don't "get" venture capital, but is Snapchat even profitable (or close to) yet? If not, and it's going to take nearly 2 billion more to get there, do they really have a product that will ultimately return value? It's the cynic in me, but by a series F, and needing 2 billion, this feels like the sort of funding where early investors are propping the valuation of Snapchat in order to sell off to someone l…
The article says they had revenue of $59m in 2015, so A) they're not profitable and B) they probably aren't even thinking too hard about trying to be. For now, growth numbers are enough to get them buckets of cash, so that's most likely what they're focusing on.
The $250-$350m forecast for 2016 is completely reasonable. Hitting that target still means a 60x valuation (and props to Snapchat for getting that kind of valuation these days), but I don't think it takes a delusional investor to see Snapchat passing $1b in just another year or two, and soon going well beyond that.