>>"Equally, at the equivalent stage in Microsoft's life, it was well known that PCs were a toy and that people wouldn't pay for software." You're mistaken in y

>>"Equally, at the equivalent stage in Microsoft's life, it was well known that PCs were a toy and that people wouldn't pay for software." You're mistaken in your analogy. Regardless of what some people thought they "knew", Microsoft was always in the paid-software business. Microsoft was formed in 1975 and that year, their revenue was $16,000. In 1977 it was $381K (with net income of $112K). 3 years after formation, Microsoft's revenue was $1.3M. Microsoft's business plan was based on selling software and they did that from the beginning. Snapchat was formed around 3 years ago. At this "equivalent stage", they seem to have zero revenue. It also seems like they are holding out for a better purchase-offer. They seem to be on the familiar VC-guided route of "selling a company and its users" as opposed to the old-fashioned route of "selling a software product/service". In general, I don't think you can equate the growth strategy/prospects of an independent/self-sufficient company that sells software-products with a company that wishes to sell itself.