5 ms·

before it became too expensive. 1b is not expensive yet? What is expensive then? Yahoo (10-15b)?

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
doktrin 15y ago
Frankly, this is as much confirmation as anyone should need that we are in fact in a massive financing bubble. The sums of money being bandied about are absolutely mind boggling. 1 billion for a photo sharing app?
- JumpCrisscross 15y ago
  Billions for a pre-revenue video sharing site (YouTube)? Tens of billions for a social network (Facebook)? Remember that Yahoo! turned down Google for around $3 billion back in the day (before talks broke down with Facebook for even less). I don't know how they got to the price and so cannot argue its rationality, but having one's eyes glaze over because of the price tag alone isn't reasonable either.
  - silentscope 15y ago
    the NY Times is valued at 900 million. just sayin'
    - PakG1 15y ago
      The NY Times is also part of what is widely considered a sunset industry, even with its online properties. It's not implausible for companies in sunrise industries to become more valuable than the NY Times in the future, even if their revenue models are not yet clear.
      - silentscope 15y ago
        print is a sunset industry. news is not. the ny times is about news, hence the apps and online deals they have. and just in case you think that's not enough, it's more of a revenue model than instagram had.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
uptown 15y ago
"1b is not expensive yet?" Well, let's assume FB gets somewhere near a 100b valuation when they go public. Is a tool that drives engagement, and ensures your users continue engaging with your site multiple times throughout the day worth a 1% investment not only to have it for yourself, but also to keep it from competitors? In one purchase, they've not only captured one of the leading mobile photography communities, but they've also purchased a tool that is used to seed those photos through other social networks. Now you'll have more "Facebook photos" appearing on to Twitter and Google Plus as long as users continue to use Instagram.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

Frankly, this is as much confirmation as anyone should need that we are in fact in a massive financing bubble. The sums of money being bandied about are absolutely mind boggling. 1 billion for a photo sharing app?

JumpCrisscross 15y ago
Billions for a pre-revenue video sharing site (YouTube)? Tens of billions for a social network (Facebook)? Remember that Yahoo! turned down Google for around $3 billion back in the day (before talks broke down with Facebook for even less). I don't know how they got to the price and so cannot argue its rationality, but having one's eyes glaze over because of the price tag alone isn't reasonable either.
- silentscope 15y ago
  the NY Times is valued at 900 million. just sayin'
  - PakG1 15y ago
    The NY Times is also part of what is widely considered a sunset industry, even with its online properties. It's not implausible for companies in sunrise industries to become more valuable than the NY Times in the future, even if their revenue models are not yet clear.
    - silentscope 15y ago
      print is a sunset industry. news is not. the ny times is about news, hence the apps and online deals they have. and just in case you think that's not enough, it's more of a revenue model than instagram had.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

uptown 15y ago

"1b is not expensive yet?" Well, let's assume FB gets somewhere near a 100b valuation when they go public. Is a tool that drives engagement, and ensures your users continue engaging with your site multiple times throughout the day worth a 1% investment not only to have it for yourself, but also to keep it from competitors? In one purchase, they've not only captured one of the leading mobile photography communities, but they've also purchased a tool that is used to seed those photos through other social networks. Now you'll have more "Facebook photos" appearing on to Twitter and Google Plus as long as users continue to use Instagram.