3 ms·

> maybe Whatsapp isn't "worth" $19B (whatever that means) It means it'll give an appropriate ROI for 19B > but it's a threat to destroy $50B of Facebook share

> maybe Whatsapp isn't "worth" $19B (whatever that means) It means it'll give an appropriate ROI for 19B > but it's a threat to destroy $50B of Facebook shareholder value If you think the destroyed 50B is greater than the expected value of the next best option for those 19B, then I suppose it's justified. But then again, that does mean that it's relatively easy to poke at Facebook's empire. I think it implies there's not a very efficient market. It means these things can keep happening over and over, draining Facebook's bank account, until it's no longer worth it for them to keep buying. (This may be what the other poster was alluding to by saying that the 50B isn't actually worth much.)

AJ007 12y ago
Benedict Evans has made strong points about how mobile and the open address book has changed Facebook's position significantly. Well worth reading or listening to some of the a16z podcasts about the topic. I think it is a very positive thing for the current ecosystem that there are many mobile apps with which we can communicate and share content. Contrast this with Google's dominance of search for the past decade. The bigger question to me isn't if Facebook wins or loses but what control Google and Apple are able to exert on communications platforms in the future. (Possibly none)