4 ms·

> is that their market isn't consumers, it's Mark Zuckerberg plus a few people who are trying to compete with Facebook. This. My take is that SnapChat's valua

> is that their market isn't consumers, it's Mark Zuckerberg plus a few people who are trying to compete with Facebook. This. My take is that SnapChat's valuation is driven mostly by the perception that it's a strong contender for acquisition by Facebook or the like. Of course it's a separate issue as to whether that buyout makes sense in the long run, because, from what I've heard anyway, a big part of the attraction of SnapChat to teens is that it is NOT part of Facebook (or Twitter or G+). Because they of them not wanting parents/teachers to see stuff, not wanting Facebook intentionally or accidentally exposing their data later, and also just the desire to be "cool" like other cool kids (the temporary fad effect, always churning along with all ages, but at a faster rate with juveniles.), etc. All/most of that gets extinguished immediately, or, eventually after, an acquisition by Facebook.

amirmc 13y ago
> "All/most of that gets extinguished immediately, or, eventually after, an acquisition by Facebook." We think that because we follow the tech news and are savvy about the consequences of an acquisition. However, I'm not sure (anymore) that it necessarily plays out that way for the general public. For example, I'm not an Instagram user but I do wonder how many of them are aware that it's now a Facebook property. If I look over their website I don't see anything obviously linking it to Facebook so maybe there's a chance that a proportion of their user-base is still treating it as independent (of course, I'm not aware of the in-app experience). It reminds me of one of those stories I read about an online game (EVE-Online?) where one guy had cornered the entire market for selling a particular power-up/drug but had a number of completely different avatars 'on the ground' so his customers had no-idea they were buying from the same person.
- mkramlich 13y ago
  > We think that because we follow the tech news and are savvy about the consequences of an acquisition. However, I'm not sure (anymore) that it necessarily plays out that way for the general public. fair point. this is a recurring pattern where there's a kind of profitable arbitrage that occurs between high/early-info groups and low/later-info groups (eg. between Wall Street types and mom-and-pop on Main Street.) This certainly could be partly due to that effect again.

amirmc 13y ago

> "All/most of that gets extinguished immediately, or, eventually after, an acquisition by Facebook." We think that because we follow the tech news and are savvy about the consequences of an acquisition. However, I'm not sure (anymore) that it necessarily plays out that way for the general public. For example, I'm not an Instagram user but I do wonder how many of them are aware that it's now a Facebook property. If I look over their website I don't see anything obviously linking it to Facebook so maybe there's a chance that a proportion of their user-base is still treating it as independent (of course, I'm not aware of the in-app experience). It reminds me of one of those stories I read about an online game (EVE-Online?) where one guy had cornered the entire market for selling a particular power-up/drug but had a number of completely different avatars 'on the ground' so his customers had no-idea they were buying from the same person.

mkramlich 13y ago
> We think that because we follow the tech news and are savvy about the consequences of an acquisition. However, I'm not sure (anymore) that it necessarily plays out that way for the general public. fair point. this is a recurring pattern where there's a kind of profitable arbitrage that occurs between high/early-info groups and low/later-info groups (eg. between Wall Street types and mom-and-pop on Main Street.) This certainly could be partly due to that effect again.