Why place an over one year old alleged offer in the media today?
Because the shares are free-falling, user growth quarter-over-quarter will likely be abysmal and float will drastically increase in 2 weeks.
The only possible sliver of hope for shareholders right now is a potential buyout. Remember how many times Twitter rallied on 'chatter' of a Google bid?
Edit: interesting number of down votes, is this such a far fetched conspiracy theory? If it was such an open secret at Snap, why has this not come out yet?
Yep. I feel like it's time to manually make a list of egregious submarine launchers, though it seems that it's journalists who's coverage is over a limited set of companies such as social media that are prone to doing things like this.
It feels like there should be a filter that considers who owns a paper, who the journalist has previously covered in depth, and what kinds of stories they're printing. Maybe something like a shill or hater score?
I'm not sure how easy this would be. Does anyone know if something like this exists?
Or perhaps someone who was subject to a 6 month lockup is pissed. Evan's a billionaire so nothing matters either way, but if you're not as high up, a 100% difference could be pretty material to your life.
This would be a very odd way of going about trying to sell the company by saying that someone was going to by it for 2x what it is presently worth ... so why not buy this falling knife right now!
It sounds like they were just internal rumors that spread around and then eventually got to a journalist.
Unless the internal sources directly and verifiably worked on drafting the proposal or discussing the concrete deal being purported - it's most likely inaccurate, overly optimistic hearsay.
Let's use our best judgement here and not humor the journalist for clicks and outrage.
Even if the rumors were true, it's meaningless. Every business the size of Google has a list of potential acquisition targets. (There was a leak of one such list from Amazon or Microsoft, I believe.) "Interest" and "intention" are two separate things, and the latter counts for a lot more.
True or not, Google clearly needed yet another messaging service, which they in about a year's time would have messed up and deprecated.
How about they just unify what they already have on offer, and get it working properly (and maybe worldwide this time!) before messing with yet another service?
True or not, Google clearly needed yet another messaging service, which they in about a year's time would have messed up and deprecated.
Exactly. It's almost been a year since Allo was released, which means we are due for an announcement of a new messaging app from Google. Likely something that combines Allo and Duo into a single app, and call it something like Trio.
Of course, when they inevitably split "Trio" into separate apps a year after release, they won't be able to stick with the same name convention.
I think Google's fragmented approach to messaging is hilarious but what's the harm in approaching messaging from different angles and apps? Why not keep at it as startups would, but throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks?
Many years ago Microsoft was trying to purchase Yahoo for $45 a share. Every company has their Yahoo moment, where they consider making an over the top purchase offer for a company, that in hind site looks like a terrible idea.
I'm not sure how far the talks went, though given that this is just coming out now, I'm guessing they didn't go very far. Would be interesting to know if the offer is still actually on the table like the article hints at.
This is the price you pay for giving up all voting rights. If Evan doesn't want to sell no sale, no matter how good of an offer is on the table. With voting rights atleast someone can hold the CEO's feet to the fire to make them consider the idea.
The reason they don't stop is that sometimes, rarely, the ridiculous acquisition is in fact a really, really good idea. Ten years ago, Google acquired YouTube for $1.6 billion. That was a Good Idea.
It's hard to believe people still bring this up when the reality is that it would have been a very successful acquisition for Microsoft had they actually purchased Yahoo.
> Many years ago Microsoft was trying to purchase Yahoo for $45 a share. Every company has their Yahoo moment, where they consider making an over the top purchase offer for a company, that in hind site looks like a terrible idea.
That bid was terrible for YHOO shareholders. You do realize YHOO owned a ton of alibaba stock and yahoo!japan stock right? The alibaba shares alone that yahoo owned is now worth more than the $45 billion offer by MSFT. That's after Mayer foolishly sold off a huge chunk of alibaba shares a few years ago to go on her buying spree.
If steve ballmer had managed to buy YHOO, it would have been one of the greatest deals in history.
YHOO owned 25% of alibaba ( which is worth about $400 billion today ). YHOO also owned Yahoo!Japan which was worth $10 billion.
If MSFT bought YHOO back then, we would be calling Steve Ballmer and MSFT a genius today.
> Why be the next Instagram when you can be the next GroupOn?
That's an unfair comparison imo.
Snapchat have bought an AI company in Eastern Europe that does those cat and dog filter on people.
Groupon was very easy to emulate, I don't think Snapchat is as easy as Groupon. The infrastructures to set up Snapchat and those AI filters and such is a bit harder.
They have enough tough-to-emulate problems to continue to be ahead of copy cats while continue to keep innovating and keep that rift.
Snap problem is making money now but that's the same with Twitter, Facebook (initially), Foursquare, etc...
I'm optimistic that they'll start making profit not sure if it'll be enough to satisfy their investor (e.g. twitter) but they will.
Could the investors/founders have cashed out as easily (or for more money) through this type of acquisition vs an IPO?
That's basically the only relevant question here. I doubt Snap would have been a better consumer product under Google's direction. They have a consistent habit of killing them off.
This high value only because facebook bought whatsapp for almost $19 billion. Google offered $10b for whatsapp. They gave up for anything beyond it thinking it is too much only to realize later it was not.
Whatsapp is probably much more valuable to Facebook than to anyone else.
Could Google really significantly monetize Whatsapp? It seems Facebook can't - but at least Facebook can ensure their other revenue streams aren't decimated by free-and-fast Whatsapp.
Well, SNAP is currently trading for $15 billion. If they can get $20 to $22.5 billion for the company right now in an acquisition by eg Google, they should immediately take it.
Twitter is the picture of where they're going, best case scenario (the difference in risk of course being, Instagram isn't a serious threat to Twitter's existence). Twitter has four times the sales (annualized run-rate), more cash, a lower quarterly burn rate (now), with 23% less market cap.
Well i think you have never used snapchat. Everyone in this thread are not all accounted in the TAM for snapchat. Before concluding that they should sell or not, i recommend people to use snapchat for six months.
Snapchat is a product which provides delightful experiences to communicate with your friends where you can express yourself as the way you are, instead of waiting for a trophy moment.
Well, SNAP DAP > TWTR DAP,
TWTR Average time spent per day: 1-2 minutes
SNAP Average time spent per day: 30-35 minutes. So SNAP has 30X potential than dead twitter with no product innovation.
Yeah, and Google also reportedly offered to buy Groupon for $7 billion, a year before it went public. Not sure what kind of consolation that gives to shareholders now...
Hah agreed. I bet it wouldn't pass DD tho. SEC was not stoked about the way they booked revenue considering the % that went right out the door to coupon vendors.
Yea, people said the same thing about Digg. TBH Google is probably interested in buying anything remotely social. Digg had the reason of not accepting their corporate "culture". Either that or Google figures out that they just have to wait and hire the CEO once the company fails (this happened to Digg).
Disclaimer: I have a small amount of Snapchat shares.
Every time I interact with any sub-21 year old person, I ask them 2 questions:
1.What's the most popular social network among your group of friends? I'd estimate 7-9/10 say Snapchat. If it is Snapchat, I proceed with question 2.
2.Do you read/interact with the "Discover" section of Snapchat? (Because this is where I think Snapchat has the most potential to actually make money.) I'd say 5-7/10 say Yes.
Yes, with all the gamification, many of them can't quit. What the problem is that kids don't have much money to pay for anything. So, if you make a product for kids, make sure it is something their parents will pay for. Snapchat is not one of them.
I feel like it's ultimately doomed in the face of Instagram, but I still see younger people using it often. I'm not sure how much that means though, many popular things from when I was young, like MySpace, are dead.
The Snap "streaks" or whatever was a smart engagement feature. But it could turn into a double edged sword- once you break the streak you might as well keep it broken.
[+] [-] naturalgradient|8 years ago|reply
Why place an over one year old alleged offer in the media today?
Because the shares are free-falling, user growth quarter-over-quarter will likely be abysmal and float will drastically increase in 2 weeks.
The only possible sliver of hope for shareholders right now is a potential buyout. Remember how many times Twitter rallied on 'chatter' of a Google bid?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/08/twitter-s...
https://www.cnet.com/uk/news/twitter-buyout-rumors-google-sa...
Edit: interesting number of down votes, is this such a far fetched conspiracy theory? If it was such an open secret at Snap, why has this not come out yet?
[+] [-] drenvuk|8 years ago|reply
It feels like there should be a filter that considers who owns a paper, who the journalist has previously covered in depth, and what kinds of stories they're printing. Maybe something like a shill or hater score?
I'm not sure how easy this would be. Does anyone know if something like this exists?
[+] [-] x0x0|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] curiousDog|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stale2002|8 years ago|reply
It is fairly common (and illegal!) for an insider to leak a fake buyout rumor to the media, in hopes that it will cause the stock price to rise.
That's what people think was happening with all those twitter rumors while ago.
[+] [-] cwilkes|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smegel|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] askafriend|8 years ago|reply
It sounds like they were just internal rumors that spread around and then eventually got to a journalist.
Unless the internal sources directly and verifiably worked on drafting the proposal or discussing the concrete deal being purported - it's most likely inaccurate, overly optimistic hearsay.
Let's use our best judgement here and not humor the journalist for clicks and outrage.
[+] [-] gk1|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bitto|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josteink|8 years ago|reply
How about they just unify what they already have on offer, and get it working properly (and maybe worldwide this time!) before messing with yet another service?
sigh
[+] [-] Goronmon|8 years ago|reply
Exactly. It's almost been a year since Allo was released, which means we are due for an announcement of a new messaging app from Google. Likely something that combines Allo and Duo into a single app, and call it something like Trio.
Of course, when they inevitably split "Trio" into separate apps a year after release, they won't be able to stick with the same name convention.
[+] [-] arkitaip|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chollida1|8 years ago|reply
I'm not sure how far the talks went, though given that this is just coming out now, I'm guessing they didn't go very far. Would be interesting to know if the offer is still actually on the table like the article hints at.
This is the price you pay for giving up all voting rights. If Evan doesn't want to sell no sale, no matter how good of an offer is on the table. With voting rights atleast someone can hold the CEO's feet to the fire to make them consider the idea.
[+] [-] puranjay|8 years ago|reply
The Yahoo that was sold recently did not include the Alibaba stake. This is where the key value of Yahoo lies.
If you break it down, the Yahoo Alibaba + Yahoo Japan stake + Yahoo's final selling price equals Microsoft's $45/share offer
[+] [-] CobrastanJorji|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bitmapbrother|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] corford|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] awkwarddaturtle|8 years ago|reply
That bid was terrible for YHOO shareholders. You do realize YHOO owned a ton of alibaba stock and yahoo!japan stock right? The alibaba shares alone that yahoo owned is now worth more than the $45 billion offer by MSFT. That's after Mayer foolishly sold off a huge chunk of alibaba shares a few years ago to go on her buying spree.
If steve ballmer had managed to buy YHOO, it would have been one of the greatest deals in history.
YHOO owned 25% of alibaba ( which is worth about $400 billion today ). YHOO also owned Yahoo!Japan which was worth $10 billion.
If MSFT bought YHOO back then, we would be calling Steve Ballmer and MSFT a genius today.
[+] [-] mikehines|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coralreef|8 years ago|reply
I do think the product team at Snapchat is stellar though, they are creative and innovative and in-tune with what young people want.
[+] [-] ribosometronome|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ehsankia|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tedunangst|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TY|8 years ago|reply
Who knows what would happen to WhatsApp if Google bought it? Could it become one of Google's current chat apps that no one uses?
[+] [-] digitalzombie|8 years ago|reply
That's an unfair comparison imo.
Snapchat have bought an AI company in Eastern Europe that does those cat and dog filter on people.
Groupon was very easy to emulate, I don't think Snapchat is as easy as Groupon. The infrastructures to set up Snapchat and those AI filters and such is a bit harder.
They have enough tough-to-emulate problems to continue to be ahead of copy cats while continue to keep innovating and keep that rift.
Snap problem is making money now but that's the same with Twitter, Facebook (initially), Foursquare, etc...
I'm optimistic that they'll start making profit not sure if it'll be enough to satisfy their investor (e.g. twitter) but they will.
[+] [-] ChrisBland|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bpodgursky|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dingo_bat|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmix|8 years ago|reply
That's basically the only relevant question here. I doubt Snap would have been a better consumer product under Google's direction. They have a consistent habit of killing them off.
[+] [-] mandeepj|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acchow|8 years ago|reply
Could Google really significantly monetize Whatsapp? It seems Facebook can't - but at least Facebook can ensure their other revenue streams aren't decimated by free-and-fast Whatsapp.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] adventured|8 years ago|reply
Twitter is the picture of where they're going, best case scenario (the difference in risk of course being, Instagram isn't a serious threat to Twitter's existence). Twitter has four times the sales (annualized run-rate), more cash, a lower quarterly burn rate (now), with 23% less market cap.
[+] [-] nice_981|8 years ago|reply
Well, SNAP DAP > TWTR DAP, TWTR Average time spent per day: 1-2 minutes SNAP Average time spent per day: 30-35 minutes. So SNAP has 30X potential than dead twitter with no product innovation.
[+] [-] bedhead|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tehwebguy|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fareesh|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zitterbewegung|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notadoc|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dalfonso|8 years ago|reply
Every time I interact with any sub-21 year old person, I ask them 2 questions:
1.What's the most popular social network among your group of friends? I'd estimate 7-9/10 say Snapchat. If it is Snapchat, I proceed with question 2.
2.Do you read/interact with the "Discover" section of Snapchat? (Because this is where I think Snapchat has the most potential to actually make money.) I'd say 5-7/10 say Yes.
In short, yes, kids still use Snapchat.
[+] [-] anotherbrownguy|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whipoodle|8 years ago|reply
The Snap "streaks" or whatever was a smart engagement feature. But it could turn into a double edged sword- once you break the streak you might as well keep it broken.
[+] [-] sidcool|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tanilama|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] whipoodle|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sctb|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] naturalgradient|8 years ago|reply