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

Pinterest S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 181 posts

Re: Pinterest S-1

#81

Post by ericd »

dingaling wrote: post #35
ericd wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly, as a long term buy and hold investor, I actually prefer to invest in companies where the founders are solidly in control, assuming I believe in their abilities. It seems like it should free them from some of the pressure to optimize for the short term at the expense of long term success.

But if they aren't predicting profits any time soon you won't be getting dividends. And you'll only have weak voting rights with which to nudge corporate strategy. So, why invest at all?

Why do people pay so much for Berkshire Hathaway shares, despite their declared intention not to pay dividends?

I trust that they still want to increase their enterprise value.

Re: Pinterest S-1

#83

Post by aclsid »

majani wrote: post #68
hodder wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If they can improve international monetization then there is a lot of room for revenue growth it would seem." A universal truth in the social network space. Unfortunately, not even FB can really extract much value outside of North America.

I think you simply fail to recognize just how far ahead North America is from the rest of the world financially.

If that was the case, then China would be the top market. This has more to do with the fact that Americans are used to pay for software at a personal level, something that not even Europe is fully used to.

Re: Pinterest S-1

#84

Post by runxel »

OldFatCactus wrote: post #31

I hate what Pinterest does to google image searching. Sometimes I really just want to paste an image src in an online discussion without having to drill into devtools.

Once upon Pinterest was great. But now it's just atrocious and toxic. Even logged in.

It's the worst outcome for solving a problem which could be naturally aced on the web. Instead we got a cancered platform causing headaches to everyone.

Full rant: https://twitter.com/bourquinary/status/1026877583772790784

Re: Pinterest S-1

#85

Post by notyourday »

ericd wrote: post #62
notyourday wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I recall correctly, Google was profitable when it went public.

Yeah, but I don't think that was short term thinking. They didn't have to mess up their long term prospects to do pull that off.

I believe that's the difference - Google demonstrated that the founders had a clue by running a profitable business. Snapchat did not.

Re: Pinterest S-1

#86

Post by friedman23 »

seanwilson wrote: post #79
OldFatCactus wrote: post #31

I hate what Pinterest does to google image searching. Sometimes I really just want to paste an image src in an online discussion without having to drill into devtools.

How does it manage to rank so well? I'm not a user of it but whenever it appears in searches it feels like endless popups and walled content that tries to make you sign up. I would have thought Google would discourage links like this.

I think it's pretty clear that almost everyone that uses hackernews is in a bubble and this bubble does not include people that use Pinterest.

Re: Pinterest S-1

#87

Post by dymk »

opportune wrote: post #57

Does pinterest count impressions from google images as active/distinct user? Wouldn't surprise me if they did that atrocious image search seo to juice up the MAU numbers. I probably live in a bubble but nobody I know uses pinterest.

Pinterest's primary demographic is women

Re: Pinterest S-1

#88

Post by hayksaakian »

john_moscow wrote: post #39

I am genuinely curious, how does the year-over-year growth of 60% come together with the pretty consistent "death curve" according to Google Trends [0]. Could they have deliberately lowered the revenue in 2017 through some clever accounting in order to come up with this number? As they have been around since ~2012, are there any prior financial metrics publicly available? [0] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?…

If you look international you can see the momentum

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=pinteres...

It's not hot and new any more in the USA but it seems to be spreading world wide

Re: Pinterest S-1

#89

Post by chubot »

hodder wrote: post #36
pdovy wrote: post #30

If I'm reading their MAU charts correctly, they have way more MAU outside of the US than inside (82m vs 184m last quarter), not only that but international user growth is relatively strong compared to the US. That said, 94% of revenue last quarter was from the US, so they are not monetizing internationally really at all. If they can improve international monetization then there is a lot of room for revenue growth it…

"If they can improve international monetization then there is a lot of room for revenue growth it would seem." A universal truth in the social network space. Unfortunately, not even FB can really extract much value outside of North America.

Is that true? What about Europe? I thought that Europeans have similar behavior to Americans as far as the Internet goes.

For example, about 10 years ago, Google higher market share in Europe than in America. It was something like 95% in Europe and 90% in the US. I wouldn't be surprised if that's still the case.

Of course Google's not a social network, but my very limited understanding says that Internet products generally translate well from America to Europe. I'd be interested to know where that's not true!

Re: Pinterest S-1

#90

Post by bigj0n »

aclsid wrote: post #83
majani wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you simply fail to recognize just how far ahead North America is from the rest of the world financially.

If that was the case, then China would be the top market. This has more to do with the fact that Americans are used to pay for software at a personal level, something that not even Europe is fully used to.

Why would China be the top market? America has a far bigger GDP and several times larger GDP per capita
Post reply on HN