4 ms·

Sorry, tuned out at $100 Billion. This is doing keg-stands of your own Kool-Aid. If you think Snapchat has the same macroeconomic value to the world as Intel,

Sorry, tuned out at $100 Billion. This is doing keg-stands of your own Kool-Aid. If you think Snapchat has the same macroeconomic value to the world as Intel, Cisco, or McDonald's... Then you've lost the ability to evaluate a technology business. I'm not sure whether to accuse this of being shill or to systematically prove how flaky the argument is. The fact is that it doesn't save photos is as much lack of a feature as it is character. The users of this app know how to take a screenshot... It's the ICQ of a different 3 years worth of teenagers that will get stomped by the next messaging app that is different from the one other people used for the past 3 years. Snapchat is valuable because of demographics. Unfortunately those demographics grow up quickly, and the ones that replace them will rebelliously reject what preceded them just like teenagers have done for the last 50 years. The fact that they are worth $18bn now is nothing but a prime example of the times. Mind you I know the company I'm in. VCs invest based on their bet and the reason that valuation sticks is more marketing than it is reality. Snapchat just isn't that valuable to the world.

jpatokal 10y ago
Facebook's market cap right now is $386B. If they play their cards right, Snapchat hitting one fourth of that is by no means impossible.
ljlolel 10y ago
Less space than a nomad
- theincredulousk 10y ago
  The 50th messaging app with a friends list is the same technological advance as the iPod?
nikcub 10y ago
> It's the ICQ of a different 3 years worth of teenagers Snapchat is already 6 years old and my mum joined it last week to keep up with all her friends and family. That's the thing with the bear case, you're right 95% of the time because most businesses fail but you never have to justify or be accountable for the 5% of times you're wrong. HN history is littered with pessimism about tech companies - Facebook isn't worth $30 billion[1], Facebook isn't worth $50 billion[2], Facebook isn't worth $100B[3], Uber isn't worth $10 billion[4].. Snapchat isn't worth .. repeat. rinse. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1719975 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1719975 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2062145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2062145 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4002857 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4002857 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7911560 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7911560
- theincredulousk 10y ago
  Personally I'm not a chronic pessimist, but my view on Snapchat is the same as Twitter, and look at what is happening with them. They are only worth their Market Cap in the sense that investors literally bought-in that much because of a hypothetical upside based on scale. What happened when they tried to sell the company? The realization sets in that the company just isn't worth that much money, nor can anyone foresee how it could be in the near future. It is a self-sustaining situation with these companies. Nobody wants to write off that big of a loss, so the valuation is sustained. Many others are sustained on the inflated belief that the market for Ad views is adjusted for the prevelance of fraud. How many times has it been shown that click, view and user bots are used in staggering numbers. The companies making all the money have little incentive to correct this. But of course Ads clearly work in many situations. I'm just saying these bloated valuations based on ad revenue have not been adjusted for the fraud reckoning. Google struck gold because the underlying utility of the search engine is so unquestionably powerful and ubiquitously necessary to the idea of the internet that it guarantees a truly awe-inspiring user base. The value proposition of getting that service for free makes viewing Ads a second thought - it is a reasonable deal for the user. What do people need from Snapchat that will keep them there? Sharing pictures and text messages is rapidly, and I mean rapidly, approaching a commodity service on par with landline telephones. Anyways, the blanket optimists are subject to the same odds. If you believe everything is going to succeed, inevitably you will be correct. Everyone has confirmation bias.
debt 10y ago
How big is the media space. It's becoming dominated by Facebook and Google and Apple and Twitter. Snapchat would be number four. All media companies. Can the market accommodate another big player? Definitely.
- theincredulousk 10y ago
  If Snapchat fits then I think it means an endless stream of next-Snapchats will also fit. All of these things are 6 of one/half dozen of the other. The limit is people arbitrarily swapping messaging apps like phone cases based on mood.
maverick_iceman 10y ago
Exactly same things were said about Facebook. Larry and Sergey laughed it off circa 2007 as pointless diversion.

jpatokal 10y ago

Facebook's market cap right now is $386B. If they play their cards right, Snapchat hitting one fourth of that is by no means impossible.

ljlolel 10y ago

Less space than a nomad

theincredulousk 10y ago
The 50th messaging app with a friends list is the same technological advance as the iPod?

nikcub 10y ago

> It's the ICQ of a different 3 years worth of teenagers Snapchat is already 6 years old and my mum joined it last week to keep up with all her friends and family. That's the thing with the bear case, you're right 95% of the time because most businesses fail but you never have to justify or be accountable for the 5% of times you're wrong. HN history is littered with pessimism about tech companies - Facebook isn't worth $30 billion[1], Facebook isn't worth $50 billion[2], Facebook isn't worth $100B[3], Uber isn't worth $10 billion[4].. Snapchat isn't worth .. repeat. rinse. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1719975 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1719975 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2062145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2062145 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4002857 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4002857 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7911560 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7911560

theincredulousk 10y ago
Personally I'm not a chronic pessimist, but my view on Snapchat is the same as Twitter, and look at what is happening with them. They are only worth their Market Cap in the sense that investors literally bought-in that much because of a hypothetical upside based on scale. What happened when they tried to sell the company? The realization sets in that the company just isn't worth that much money, nor can anyone foresee how it could be in the near future. It is a self-sustaining situation with these companies. Nobody wants to write off that big of a loss, so the valuation is sustained. Many others are sustained on the inflated belief that the market for Ad views is adjusted for the prevelance of fraud. How many times has it been shown that click, view and user bots are used in staggering numbers. The companies making all the money have little incentive to correct this. But of course Ads clearly work in many situations. I'm just saying these bloated valuations based on ad revenue have not been adjusted for the fraud reckoning. Google struck gold because the underlying utility of the search engine is so unquestionably powerful and ubiquitously necessary to the idea of the internet that it guarantees a truly awe-inspiring user base. The value proposition of getting that service for free makes viewing Ads a second thought - it is a reasonable deal for the user. What do people need from Snapchat that will keep them there? Sharing pictures and text messages is rapidly, and I mean rapidly, approaching a commodity service on par with landline telephones. Anyways, the blanket optimists are subject to the same odds. If you believe everything is going to succeed, inevitably you will be correct. Everyone has confirmation bias.

debt 10y ago

How big is the media space. It's becoming dominated by Facebook and Google and Apple and Twitter. Snapchat would be number four. All media companies. Can the market accommodate another big player? Definitely.

theincredulousk 10y ago
If Snapchat fits then I think it means an endless stream of next-Snapchats will also fit. All of these things are 6 of one/half dozen of the other. The limit is people arbitrarily swapping messaging apps like phone cases based on mood.

maverick_iceman 10y ago

Exactly same things were said about Facebook. Larry and Sergey laughed it off circa 2007 as pointless diversion.