4 ms·

Hate to be that guy, but how can a star in a bottle cost only ~105% of WhatsApp. One of them is incorrectly valued.

by habosa 13y ago

occam65 13y ago
That made me legitimately chuckle! Though think about how popular of a communications platform that WhatsApp is, particularly in parts of Asia and Africa. It's transformed the communications industry in those areas! That still may not account for the relatively small difference between the two, but it helps put into perspective exactly why WhatsApp was so valuable.
- sitkack 13y ago
  I think WhatsApp is great, but is something that _didn't need to exist_. And by that I mean, the carriers structured their SMS fees in a way that did not mirror technical reality. "Data" was billed a more realistic rate as opposed to hyper-inflated SMS rates and allowed SMS type-traffic to flow over the data channel. Had carriers priced themselves properly, WhatsApp would have never had a foothold.
  - nickstinemates 13y ago
    Not a SMS pricing issue. I believe it's the fact that it costs anything at all. When wifi is free, and you have a method that enables communication without a phone plan.. that's goodness.
    - sitkack 13y ago
      Correct, but that is a failure of the carriers not supporting their customers. Cellular carriers should be supporting VOIP over data (3g,4g) and internet wifi. But since they are rent seeking, they won't disrupt their voice and sms traffic, enabling plays like WhatsApp.
      - nickstinemates 13y ago
        No debates there; it will be interesting to see how phone carriers fight being 'dumb pipes', which I believe we all want to see as inevitable.
        bobsil1 13y ago
        PSTN and TV are dead, they just don't know it yet.
gus_massa 13y ago
On the other hand, the WhatsApp people have a working prototype. The final total cost to build a fusion reactor that has a net energy gain is still unknown, because nobody has done that yet.
chaz 13y ago
One is a cost, the other is a valuation -- two completely different things. A ditch can cost a million dollars to dig, but have a ~$0 valuation.
- habosa 13y ago
  True, but on the other I hand it's simpler to say that I need $20B to buy ITER, $19B to buy WhatsApp, and $11B to buy the LHC. One of those things is not like the other. I totally understand that I am cherry-picking here. There are many things in the world that are over- or under-valued when you compare their economic contribution to their societal contribution. I just thought this would be an interesting point to make on Hacker News.
  - chaz 13y ago
    > I need $20B to buy ITER, $19B to buy WhatsApp, and $11B to buy the LHC No, you could say that it would cost you $20B to build a copy of ITER -- very different. You can't buy ITER for what was paid to build it. Or maybe you can. We have no idea because the valuation is unknown. The project is so risky, we're spreading the cost around 35 countries. If we thought it was more of a sure thing, every country would be trying to build their own. Many companies, too.
    - BigTuna 13y ago
      The valuation is so unknown that the project has its own currency: the ITER unit of account. True, that was done because 3 dozen countries with their own (mostly) separate currencies are collaborating on the same project, but it makes for a nice excuse. :)
logicallee 13y ago
Because there is no markup on the star in a bottle. They can build a trillion dollars of value - as the U.S. Government did when it created the Internet - and bill at cost. It will not even be recouped. It's billed to taxpayers. And that's why centralized governments are so great. This is a roundabout way of saying that you are really looking at just the cost - what it takes to build this thing. Nobody is appreciating the value of it except the nations that signed up - and they're not selling a percentage.

Hate to be that guy, but how can a star in a bottle cost only ~105% of WhatsApp. One of them is incorrectly valued.

by habosa 13y ago

Hate to be that guy, but how can a star in a bottle cost only ~105% of WhatsApp. One of them is incorrectly valued.

That made me legitimately chuckle! Though think about how popular of a communications platform that WhatsApp is, particularly in parts of Asia and Africa. It's transformed the communications industry in those areas! That still may not account for the relatively small difference between the two, but it helps put into perspective exactly why WhatsApp was so valuable.

sitkack 13y ago
I think WhatsApp is great, but is something that _didn't need to exist_. And by that I mean, the carriers structured their SMS fees in a way that did not mirror technical reality. "Data" was billed a more realistic rate as opposed to hyper-inflated SMS rates and allowed SMS type-traffic to flow over the data channel. Had carriers priced themselves properly, WhatsApp would have never had a foothold.
- nickstinemates 13y ago
  Not a SMS pricing issue. I believe it's the fact that it costs anything at all. When wifi is free, and you have a method that enables communication without a phone plan.. that's goodness.
  - sitkack 13y ago
    Correct, but that is a failure of the carriers not supporting their customers. Cellular carriers should be supporting VOIP over data (3g,4g) and internet wifi. But since they are rent seeking, they won't disrupt their voice and sms traffic, enabling plays like WhatsApp.
    - nickstinemates 13y ago
      No debates there; it will be interesting to see how phone carriers fight being 'dumb pipes', which I believe we all want to see as inevitable.
      - bobsil1 13y ago
        PSTN and TV are dead, they just don't know it yet.

gus_massa 13y ago

On the other hand, the WhatsApp people have a working prototype. The final total cost to build a fusion reactor that has a net energy gain is still unknown, because nobody has done that yet.

chaz 13y ago

One is a cost, the other is a valuation -- two completely different things. A ditch can cost a million dollars to dig, but have a ~$0 valuation.

habosa 13y ago
True, but on the other I hand it's simpler to say that I need $20B to buy ITER, $19B to buy WhatsApp, and $11B to buy the LHC. One of those things is not like the other. I totally understand that I am cherry-picking here. There are many things in the world that are over- or under-valued when you compare their economic contribution to their societal contribution. I just thought this would be an interesting point to make on Hacker News.
- chaz 13y ago
  > I need $20B to buy ITER, $19B to buy WhatsApp, and $11B to buy the LHC No, you could say that it would cost you $20B to build a copy of ITER -- very different. You can't buy ITER for what was paid to build it. Or maybe you can. We have no idea because the valuation is unknown. The project is so risky, we're spreading the cost around 35 countries. If we thought it was more of a sure thing, every country would be trying to build their own. Many companies, too.
  - BigTuna 13y ago
    The valuation is so unknown that the project has its own currency: the ITER unit of account. True, that was done because 3 dozen countries with their own (mostly) separate currencies are collaborating on the same project, but it makes for a nice excuse. :)

logicallee 13y ago

Because there is no markup on the star in a bottle. They can build a trillion dollars of value - as the U.S. Government did when it created the Internet - and bill at cost. It will not even be recouped. It's billed to taxpayers. And that's why centralized governments are so great. This is a roundabout way of saying that you are really looking at just the cost - what it takes to build this thing. Nobody is appreciating the value of it except the nations that signed up - and they're not selling a percentage.