Broadcast.com's bar is incorrectly scaled down 1000x -- overlay shows cost per user is over $10k, but it lists at $10.
I think it's the comma. The visualization code must just grab the first set of numbers.
Famous tech acquisitions’ cost per user
51–60 of 100 posts
Re: Famous tech acquisitions’ cost per user
#52I do not like charts like this because their existence implies that cost per user somehow matters, or is a deciding factor even, in the price of an acquisition. Even if that was the major metric in determining a price, there's often a very large difference between the number of users currently and the expected number 1 year or 5 years out. You don't buy a company because of the number of users it has right now. You b…
Overall I think there are a lot of factors, many that we the public are not privy to, that form the basis of these deals. All of this analysis and speculation is a form of entertainment. And that's fine I guess...
Re: Famous tech acquisitions’ cost per user
#53I do not like charts like this because their existence implies that cost per user somehow matters, or is a deciding factor even, in the price of an acquisition. Even if that was the major metric in determining a price, there's often a very large difference between the number of users currently and the expected number 1 year or 5 years out. You don't buy a company because of the number of users it has right now. You b…
>When Flickr for instance was aquired, what percentage of users were paying users?
Probably a lot more than there are now. As a former paying user of Flickr, Yahoo really stopped all development for about five years. Now, I have no reason to upgrade to a pro account.
Re: Famous tech acquisitions’ cost per user
#54I do not like charts like this because their existence implies that cost per user somehow matters, or is a deciding factor even, in the price of an acquisition. Even if that was the major metric in determining a price, there's often a very large difference between the number of users currently and the expected number 1 year or 5 years out. You don't buy a company because of the number of users it has right now. You b…
Also, the metric amuses me since it implies most of the value of a tech acquisition is in the users, not the actual tech or talent being acquired. Or the timing and context of the acquisition. Is this trying to say Whatsapp was a good deal? lol.
Re: Famous tech acquisitions’ cost per user
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Metcalfe's law is clearly wrong after a network get's overly large. I could in theory call a random person in China but if I have no way of communicating with them it's practically worthless to do so.
Cat gifs are pretty universal. But seriously: I've had people on conference calls when they couldn't understand the language, but someone wanted them to see slides. The fact they could join the call (in that case on Skype) definitely made the network more valuable. You might argue that the fact you can't speak to some of them drops the value per user, and that is true to some extent. But the fact they are on there an…
[deleted]
Re: Famous tech acquisitions’ cost per user
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Metcalfe's law is clearly wrong after a network get's overly large. I could in theory call a random person in China but if I have no way of communicating with them it's practically worthless to do so.
Cat gifs are pretty universal. But seriously: I've had people on conference calls when they couldn't understand the language, but someone wanted them to see slides. The fact they could join the call (in that case on Skype) definitely made the network more valuable. You might argue that the fact you can't speak to some of them drops the value per user, and that is true to some extent. But the fact they are on there an…
Orders of magnitude. Sure, adding someone else in china is in theory worth something. However adding one more friend that I regularly communicate with on a network is worth more to me than every person in China.
PS: For large networks X Log X is probably much closer to reality than X ^2. Just compare the amount of internet bandwidth between NY to California vs the bandwidth between the US and China.
Re: Famous tech acquisitions’ cost per user
#57You forgot about how much Microsoft paid for Hotmail.. i think it was $40/user.. $400 million for 10 million users
Re: Famous tech acquisitions’ cost per user
#58The cost per employee numbers are what have me raging. Given how much value engineers produce (even mediocre ones, much less us closer to the 10x persuasion) how the fuck did we end up being so lowly valued?
I think the answer is that we suck at fighting for our own interests. A traditional union might not be the answer, but something like the SAG might be the way to go. It's absolutely inexcusable that computer programmers don't, for example, have the right to have a representative when negotiating with management or HR.
Re: Famous tech acquisitions’ cost per user
#59I do not like charts like this because their existence implies that cost per user somehow matters, or is a deciding factor even, in the price of an acquisition. Even if that was the major metric in determining a price, there's often a very large difference between the number of users currently and the expected number 1 year or 5 years out. You don't buy a company because of the number of users it has right now. You b…
The Critical Path discusses really well in the latest episode. http://5by5.tv/criticalpath/112
Re: Famous tech acquisitions’ cost per user
#60Who made this? I want to cite it properly on TechCrunch?