4 ms·
Something's fishy though. Compare these acquisition numbers to the numbers that float in more "money-prone" parts of the software business. For instance, I've n
by sentenza 13y ago
Something's fishy though. Compare these acquisition numbers to the numbers that float in more "money-prone" parts of the software business. For instance, I've never heared of that kind of money being thrown around regarding the suppliers of software that banks and traders use.
It's not that a revolutionary social service shouldn't be worth billions, but What's App is messaging. And messaging in the long term could just as well boil down to a specified standard with half a billion apps out there that support the standard.
There's no reason why messaging should be a market that can be dominated by a single player over more than the social network percolation timescale.
- adventured 13y agoI think that's a critical conclusion: messaging in the age of bytes is nearly worthless monetarily. You have to be able to hold your base hostage to really milk it financially (eg as Verizon and AT&T have done for years on SMS). It's why webmail and instant messaging have never produced much financial value. If you can't hold them hostage, I think you'll find your audience unwilling to pony up for what effectively costs nothing to transit.
- bedhead 13y agoThat's because bank infrastructure or CAD/CAM or ERP systems aren't particularly new or exciting, so there's no reason for a mania to take hold. The upside is generally known. But something like Snapchat or WhatsApp or hell even Tesla have these crazy "blue sky" opportunities, so people can extrapolate a kajillion dollars in profits one day and no one can definitively dispute otherwise.