Facebook devours Instagram
Fucking wankers.
Reply
Plissken wrote:
CEO Dick Swinging


Now there is a Twitter spoof account just waiting to happen.
It doesn't seem all that surprising to me that Facebook should be valued highly (whether it is as high as the value placed on it I've no idea but it doesn't seem inconceivable). I can't think of a single bigger advertising opportunity anywhere. What's, say, a very large American TV network worth?
You also shouldn't underestimate how much of the discontent is a basic bit of jealousy. A lot of these popular online services are so simplistic you inevitably think you could have come up with it yourself. Except you didn't, and now someone else had gone from startup to multi-millionare while you still grind away on an average wage. I'd defy any of the naysayers to turn down a similar offer, which they obviously wouldn't.

If someone wanted to buy one of my websites for a million quid, I wouldn't care if they wanted to turn it into a donkey porn boutique.
Plissken wrote:
Mimi wrote:
Yes, like Facebook, then. You said that Instagram was worse than Facebook in this regard. After a little discussion it turns out that it isn't. That's all.


We're at cross purposes. My point is that people are bitching about Evil Privacy Killah Facebook buying Instagram. A lot of this bitching is being done on Twitter, which is pretty much wide open from a privacy point of view in a way that Facebook wouldn't dream of. It is kind of like praising Saruman for beating Sauron.


I don't really think that there has been any discussion about the merits of Twitter here, as that isn't what this thread has been about. It's been about facebook buying out twitter.

Of course, twitter has a private account feature too, where you can choose for only certain approved users to see your tweets. So people may choose to be as private or open as they wish, and again, I don't think that most people are talking about 'privacy' from a point of view of the visibility of their posts, but what various companies do with user data, etc.
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
The problem I think Cavey is describing is that valuations are enormously speculative and not representative of fixed, tangible assets, and demonstrable profit and performance history. That apportioning such high valuations to entities with very little to show for it is a very risky thing to do, and reminds me of the dotcom bubble that eventually burst. You have to wonder if these whizzkid startups are going to realise their alleged worth in the long term. Myspace certainly didn't.



Which is why in a VC fund you have a portfolio of many companies, and expect 95% of them to fail. The 5% that don't pay enough to the investors to enable the risk to be taken. I once received quite a cheery phone call from a fund manager about a company that had collapsed, shedding £25,000 per hour in its final throes ($18 million was written off), but that money really didn't matter, as it was more than made up for from someone buying another company. He was more than happy with that result. Sometimes, if you're really lucky, you get two big wins, although this is rare.

I compiled a list of $1 billion dollar IPOs in the past decade, and the number was much higher than I expected. I also analysed who was putting money into the first round of funding. This information, once complied was swapped for the setting up of a meeting with some guy about investments. It was interesting stuff.

The essence of such investments is merely winning big enough to write off the losses, and to do this providing firms with a competent and experienced board. you can't make money with small funds, and semiconduictors are so three years ago.
Mimi wrote:
Plissken wrote:
Mimi wrote:
Yes, like Facebook, then. You said that Instagram was worse than Facebook in this regard. After a little discussion it turns out that it isn't. That's all.


We're at cross purposes. My point is that people are bitching about Evil Privacy Killah Facebook buying Instagram. A lot of this bitching is being done on Twitter, which is pretty much wide open from a privacy point of view in a way that Facebook wouldn't dream of. It is kind of like praising Saruman for beating Sauron.


I don't really think that there has been any discussion about the merits of Twitter here, as that isn't what this thread has been about. It's been about facebook buying out twitter.


Jeez! By the end of the week they'll have bought everyone!

;)
MaliA wrote:
Which is why in a VC fund you have a portfolio of many companies, and expect 95% of them to fail


That's certainly interesting stuff Mr A, which does rather show that if you've got the nouse to know where the money is, and how to exploit it, becoming rich is merely a case of doing the necessary.

Also makes you wondering why, if any of the 12 candidates on the Apprentice truly had a fucking clue, they'd waste their time dancing a jig for Alan Sugar for a measily £250k.
MaliA wrote:
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
The problem I think Cavey is describing is that valuations are enormously speculative and not representative of fixed, tangible assets, and demonstrable profit and performance history. That apportioning such high valuations to entities with very little to show for it is a very risky thing to do, and reminds me of the dotcom bubble that eventually burst. You have to wonder if these whizzkid startups are going to realise their alleged worth in the long term. Myspace certainly didn't.



Which is why in a VC fund you have a portfolio of many companies, and expect 95% of them to fail. The 5% that don't pay enough to the investors to enable the risk to be taken. I once received quite a cheery phone call from a fund manager about a company that had collapsed, shedding £25,000 per hour in its final throes ($18 million was written off), but that money really didn't matter, as it was more than made up for from someone buying another company. He was more than happy with that result. Sometimes, if you're really lucky, you get two big wins, although this is rare.

I compiled a list of $1 billion dollar IPOs in the past decade, and the number was much higher than I expected. I also analysed who was putting money into the first round of funding. This information, once complied was swapped for the setting up of a meeting with some guy about investments. It was interesting stuff.

The essence of such investments is merely winning big enough to write off the losses, and to do this providing firms with a competent and experienced board. you can't make money with small funds, and semiconduictors are so three years ago.


Indeed. It's also worth bearing in mind that Facebook have more money than God. Funnily enough, also generated from intangibles. They're still doing an awful job of monetising the thing.
$500 million in the first half of 2011 suggests not too bad a job of monetising it.
Certainly, but that's small fry next to what it's supposedly worth!

Hell, what is this thread about? Buying a photo uploading app for $1 BILLION.
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
You also shouldn't underestimate how much of the discontent is a basic bit of jealousy. A lot of these popular online services are so simplistic you inevitably think you could have come up with it yourself. Except you didn't, and now someone else had gone from startup to multi-millionare while you still grind away on an average wage. I'd defy any of the naysayers to turn down a similar offer, which they obviously wouldn't.

If someone wanted to buy one of my websites for a million quid, I wouldn't care if they wanted to turn it into a donkey porn boutique.


Jealousy? No, not exactly, although I will readily admit to being pissed off at the sight of what, to me at least, looks very much like the normal tenets and principles of business being thrown out of the window.

Regardless however, no-one here is saying that they'd blame anyone for selling their virtual creation for however many gazillion dollars; this is not the issue.
WTB wrote:
Certainly, but that's small fry next to what it's supposedly worth!

Hell, what is this thread about? Buying a photo uploading app for $1 BILLION.


The 1970s Polaroid-look virtual filter is feckin' awesome though. :D
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Which is why in a VC fund you have a portfolio of many companies, and expect 95% of them to fail


That's certainly interesting stuff Mr A, which does rather show that if you've got the nouse to know where the money is, and how to exploit it, becoming rich is merely a case of doing the necessary.



You take money from poor people, and take a cut. You give this money to rich people, who take a cut. They give it to soon to be rich people who do stuff. They then give money back to the rich people, who take a cut, who give it back to you, who takes a cut, and then you give the remainder back to the poor people.
Curiosity wrote:
Mimi wrote:
Plissken wrote:
Mimi wrote:
Yes, like Facebook, then. You said that Instagram was worse than Facebook in this regard. After a little discussion it turns out that it isn't. That's all.


We're at cross purposes. My point is that people are bitching about Evil Privacy Killah Facebook buying Instagram. A lot of this bitching is being done on Twitter, which is pretty much wide open from a privacy point of view in a way that Facebook wouldn't dream of. It is kind of like praising Saruman for beating Sauron.


I don't really think that there has been any discussion about the merits of Twitter here, as that isn't what this thread has been about. It's been about facebook buying out twitter.


Jeez! By the end of the week they'll have bought everyone!

;)

hehe, bugger. I meant IG. See, it's confused me now that someone has thrown Twitter into the equation. :p
MaliA wrote:
I compiled a list of $1 billion dollar IPOs in the past decade, and the number was much higher than I expected. I also analysed who was putting money into the first round of funding. This information, once complied was swapped for the setting up of a meeting with some guy about investments. It was interesting stuff.


There was a really good article I think that Dr G linked to abut the IPO for LinkedIn utterly screwing the owners in favour of the companies that underwrote it.
I wasn't implying you were jealous Cavey, rather the moaning masses who accuse it of selling out, etc.
Plissken wrote:
MaliA wrote:
I compiled a list of $1 billion dollar IPOs in the past decade, and the number was much higher than I expected. I also analysed who was putting money into the first round of funding. This information, once complied was swapped for the setting up of a meeting with some guy about investments. It was interesting stuff.


There was a really good article I think that Dr G linked to abut the IPO for LinkedIn utterly screwing the owners in favour of the companies that underwrote it.


We had ice cream in the office that day. We might have watched the cricket, too.
WTB wrote:
They're still doing an awful job of monetising the thing.
Facebook has a 30% profit margin -- putting it in the same rungs as Apple, Google, and Microsoft. I'd say that's a pretty reasonable job of monetising it.
Captain Caveman wrote:
Regardless however, no-one here is saying that they'd blame anyone for selling their virtual creation for however many gazillion dollars; this is not the issue.

The opening post here, and the general online chatter sails very close to that line.
MaliA wrote:
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Which is why in a VC fund you have a portfolio of many companies, and expect 95% of them to fail


That's certainly interesting stuff Mr A, which does rather show that if you've got the nouse to know where the money is, and how to exploit it, becoming rich is merely a case of doing the necessary.



You take money from poor people, and take a cut. You give this money to rich people, who take a cut. They give it to soon to be rich people who do stuff. They then give money back to the rich people, who take a cut, who give it back to you, who takes a cut, and then you give the remainder back to the poor people.

First you get the Sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women
WTB wrote:
Certainly, but that's small fry next to what it's supposedly worth!

Hell, what is this thread about? Buying a photo uploading app for $1 BILLION.



The profit on the secondary share market was staggering last year. I can only imagine what the multiples were in the previous twelve months.
WTB wrote:
Buying a photo uploading app for $1 BILLION.
Well, not really. As APoD has said, most[1] of the $1bn will be in the form of shares in Facebook transferred to Instagram's stakeholders (the CEO, his co-founder, the employees, and the various VC firms that have invested). The cost to Facebook for that part of the deal is far less than the dollar value suggests. No-one's writing a check with $1,000,000,000 on it.

[1] not all -- there is a cash element to the deal, but no-one's saying how much.
Which is precisely my point! It's profit from speculation rather than actual tangible sale of goods or services that makes them their money. Which is why they go around buying companies for vastly inflated prices.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
WTB wrote:
Buying a photo uploading app for $1 BILLION.
Well, not really. As APoD has said, most[1] of the $1bn will be in the form of shares in Facebook transferred to Instagram's stakeholders (the CEO, his co-founder, the employees, and the various VC firms that have invested). The cost to Facebook for that part of the deal is far less than the dollar value suggests. No-one's writing a check with $1,000,000,000 on it.

[1] not all -- there is a cash element to the deal, but no-one's saying how much.


Well, duh.
MaliA wrote:
We had ice cream in the office that day. We might have watched the cricket, too.


Yeah, yeah.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/opini ... .html?_r=1
When MaliA makes his first billion from griefing start-up companies, I hope he remembers us little people...
Plissken wrote:
MaliA wrote:
We had ice cream in the office that day. We might have watched the cricket, too.


Yeah, yeah.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/opini ... .html?_r=1



No, really. We ate a lot of ice cream and watched a lot of cricket in the time I was there.
Captain Caveman wrote:
I will readily admit to being pissed off at the sight of what, to me at least, looks very much like the normal tenets and principles of business being thrown out of the window.


It's more logical than it looks on the surface. What facebook are buying here, essentially, is nothing to do with photographs. They're buying access to a customer base. And it's a pretty sodding big customer base. Making money out of social enterprise in the modern age is all about being the company that has the biggest possible exposure to the general public, and that's exactly what facebook are doing here.
Craster, shouldn't you be at a ping pong show or something?
In a jungle now, lazily compiling and editing my Bangkok photos.
It makes me wonder sometimes, how you keep from going under.
Zardoz wrote:
It makes me wonder sometimes, how you keep from going under.


is that why they call him Bob?
No, they call him that because he looks the same from the front and back.
Craster wrote:
...lazily compiling and editing my Bangkok photos.


I'm going to assume that's a euphemism for "having a quick wank over some ladyboy porn".
nickachu wrote:
Who cares. What the fuck is instagram?

Some people care. It's a thing.
Is there an Instagram thread? Never mind... This will do.

Thanks to the Windows Phone, I now have an Instgram account. It's TheXboxVision and I aim to post pictures of games and erm... That's about it.
I hope you hold the games while duck face belfieing.
TheVision wrote:
Is there an Instagram thread? Never mind... This will do.

Thanks to the Windows Phone, I now have an Instgram account. It's TheXboxVision and I aim to post pictures of games and erm... That's about it.

If you don't get Reddit or Minecraft then you've got no hope with this.
I wasn’t sure which thread to use but thought this’d do. A big knitting pattern designer has had promotion, linked sale and advertising of her new book banned from both the Facebook and IG platforms because of its controversial title(?)

https://twitter.com/astitchintime/statu ... 4225779712




She has qualified her use of the title by saying it is all about her personal evolution and growth as a person, but even if it was a book of knitting patterns celebrating key evolutionary species, how can a claim be made that evolution is in any way controversial? Allowing for Creationists, it’s surely the accepted science.

I assume this was kicked off by some religious fundamental/Creationist users (coordinated attack?) but it’s been reviewed and the decision still stands. Even the associated hashtags have been disallowed.

Does anyone understand how these decisions come about?
It's pretty simple really. The world has gone mad.
Page 3 of 3 [ 142 posts ]
cron