4 ms·

I haven't read the details but an earlier message said "70x revenue". It is hard to think of a reason not to sell at that multiple.

brundolf 6y ago
Sure, nobody said this doesn't work out well for the founders. Just the product, and its userbase, and future business.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  I wonder if and when the society will finally develop an immune response to this business pattern: a) get a large amount of people to tie their lives/businesses to a service you provide, b) sell out to a bigger fish, leaving these users high and dry.
  - deegles 6y ago
    That will be the year of the Linux desktop.
  - andreareina 6y ago
    What would that response be, other than refusing to use anything with mainstream adoption?
    - jkaplowitz 6y ago
      Maybe insisting that this type of core service get provided by charitable nonprofits, which inherently can't sell to for-profits? ...Yeah, I'm not expecting that to happen en masse either, honestly, as long as we live in capitalism.
  - bserge 6y ago
    On the bright side, these users can likely move to another platform if the big fish fudges up. And now the big fish has spent a massive amount on a worthless product. Kinda like MySpace.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't. Services that came after MySpace aren't like MySpace. Switching from one dominant service for posting your meal photos to another dominant service for posting your meal photos is relatively easy. But if a web tool you depend on decides to finish their "incredible journey", you're likely to remain without an equivalent replacement (VC subsidies making it easy for few players to suck out oxygen from a market segment), and you end up having to adapt your workflow to whatever remains or comes after.
pbourke 6y ago
Slack is valued higher than Kroger, which runs 2,700+ grocery stores in the United Stages. Apple and Sweden have about the same valuation right now. Apple is worth 30% more than Saudi Arabia.
- pembrook 6y ago
  Except Apple does about $300B in revenue at like 40% gross margins, which is absolutely insane and means they are valued much more reasonably than Slack. Apple is also growing faster than Sweden’s economy.
- maratc 6y ago
  > Apple and Sweden have about the same valuation right now Sweden doesn't have valuation, so you can't compare them. Apple has valuation which is measured in dollars. Sweden has GDP which is measured in dollars per year. The units are different, so the numbers aren't comparable. I guess one can say "Sweden produces about one Apple's worth in a year", or "Saudi Arabia produces about one Apple's worth in a year and a bit". This however makes owning Sweden/Saudi Arabia look better than owning Apple by a shot.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - pbourke 6y ago
    > Apple has valuation which is measured in dollars. Sweden has GDP which is measured in dollars per year. The units are different, so the numbers aren't comparable. Of course. I was referring to Sweden's national wealth[1], which is roughly equal to Apple's market cap of $2T. Sweden's GDP of $560B is only roughly twice Apple's FY2020 revenue of $275B. Apple is worth roughly 2% of the national wealth of the United States, which is $106T. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_wealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_wea...
    - maratc 6y ago
      > National net wealth, also known as national net worth, is the total sum of the value of a nation's assets minus its liabilities. For the little sense that comparing a public company to a nation state makes, one still might be inclined to compare Apples to apples (and not to Oranges). In this case, one should compare National Wealth (country's assets minus its liabilities) against Apple's assets minus its liabilities. That calculation gives us about 65B dollars, which puts Apple somewhere between Ghana (95th) and Turkmenistan (96th).

brundolf 6y ago

Sure, nobody said this doesn't work out well for the founders. Just the product, and its userbase, and future business.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
I wonder if and when the society will finally develop an immune response to this business pattern: a) get a large amount of people to tie their lives/businesses to a service you provide, b) sell out to a bigger fish, leaving these users high and dry.
- deegles 6y ago
  That will be the year of the Linux desktop.
- andreareina 6y ago
  What would that response be, other than refusing to use anything with mainstream adoption?
  - jkaplowitz 6y ago
    Maybe insisting that this type of core service get provided by charitable nonprofits, which inherently can't sell to for-profits? ...Yeah, I'm not expecting that to happen en masse either, honestly, as long as we live in capitalism.
- bserge 6y ago
  On the bright side, these users can likely move to another platform if the big fish fudges up. And now the big fish has spent a massive amount on a worthless product. Kinda like MySpace.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't. Services that came after MySpace aren't like MySpace. Switching from one dominant service for posting your meal photos to another dominant service for posting your meal photos is relatively easy. But if a web tool you depend on decides to finish their "incredible journey", you're likely to remain without an equivalent replacement (VC subsidies making it easy for few players to suck out oxygen from a market segment), and you end up having to adapt your workflow to whatever remains or comes after.

pbourke 6y ago

Slack is valued higher than Kroger, which runs 2,700+ grocery stores in the United Stages. Apple and Sweden have about the same valuation right now. Apple is worth 30% more than Saudi Arabia.

pembrook 6y ago
Except Apple does about $300B in revenue at like 40% gross margins, which is absolutely insane and means they are valued much more reasonably than Slack. Apple is also growing faster than Sweden’s economy.
maratc 6y ago
> Apple and Sweden have about the same valuation right now Sweden doesn't have valuation, so you can't compare them. Apple has valuation which is measured in dollars. Sweden has GDP which is measured in dollars per year. The units are different, so the numbers aren't comparable. I guess one can say "Sweden produces about one Apple's worth in a year", or "Saudi Arabia produces about one Apple's worth in a year and a bit". This however makes owning Sweden/Saudi Arabia look better than owning Apple by a shot.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- pbourke 6y ago
  > Apple has valuation which is measured in dollars. Sweden has GDP which is measured in dollars per year. The units are different, so the numbers aren't comparable. Of course. I was referring to Sweden's national wealth[1], which is roughly equal to Apple's market cap of $2T. Sweden's GDP of $560B is only roughly twice Apple's FY2020 revenue of $275B. Apple is worth roughly 2% of the national wealth of the United States, which is $106T. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_wealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_wea...
  - maratc 6y ago
    > National net wealth, also known as national net worth, is the total sum of the value of a nation's assets minus its liabilities. For the little sense that comparing a public company to a nation state makes, one still might be inclined to compare Apples to apples (and not to Oranges). In this case, one should compare National Wealth (country's assets minus its liabilities) against Apple's assets minus its liabilities. That calculation gives us about 65B dollars, which puts Apple somewhere between Ghana (95th) and Turkmenistan (96th).