This is total bs. $54 million in revenue with an $18 billion valuation? I understand investing in the "future value" of companies, but this shit is getting out of hand, lol.
Snapchat might be worth a lot, but I'm just sick of companies like this being valued so high, simply because they provide literally no benefit to society.
If Snapchat went down tomorrow, would it really affect anyone? Nope, the World would keep on spinning.
It's time to incentivize people to make a difference, not build photo sharing apps. There are real problems in the world that desperately need to be solved, yet we're getting rich off dick picks and calling ourselves the "innovator of the century." Yeah...no thanks.
What if there was a committee of experts -- leaders in the field -- who decided what startups got investment? They could truly weigh the cost-benefit analysis.
Of course, it would only work if there were some enforcement mechanism. So unauthorized coding would need to be outlawed. At least you couldn't spend any money on it.
We'd have to pick the right experts, too. That shouldn't be too hard, we could start right here on HN! Lots of smart people. The free market is so random, amoral, and inefficient. Obviously a group of well-educated, experienced software engineers could allocate labor way more efficiently.
This can't fail. When we get the pesky market out of the way, the sky's the limit! Progress together! History marches on!
The value of something is typically a combination of different values, not just the intrinsic worth to society.
"they provide literally no benefit to society"
broadly could apply to lots of industries. Movies, TV, pro sports, music, tourism, etc. People will take issue with the inclusion of some of these, but that's the point: "no benefit to society" is entirely subjective. Another way to look at it is the benefit to society is "fun", and that people value fun things.
So while I am in general agreement overall, I think it's not really fair to single out tech companies for being exceptionally efficient at providing the "fun" benefit to society.
They're busy working.
VCs should change? Fine, be the VC who only invests in ideas that have social impact. There are tons of VCs like that. They don't get a lot of LP money, but some are doing just fine.
Maybe the LPs should change? Fine, be the LP who doesn't invest in a VC who's investing in Snapchat. You can explain to your investment committee why you're missing out on returns, and when that means that a State pension fund can't pay teachers their pensions -- well there's a fair argument that better returns are good for everyone.
Maybe it's the consumer's fault? Maybe the consumer shouldn't enjoy Snapchat? The great thing is, you're free to not enjoy Snapchat.
Do you think it's the government's fault? Maybe they should prevent people from enjoying Snapchat, or incentivize something else?
I get it: you think there should be financial incentives from the government? Is that it? Tax money to go to the "right kind" of startups, the ones that would get praise on HN from Serious Engineers?
Well, that sounds to me like "we can't get people to voluntarily invest in these ideas, so let's coerce the public into being LPs in risky ventures that weren't good enough for private markets." And, so: no thanks, I'm good.
I feel as though that has failed to materialize, and their new demographic is "relatives over 50 desperate to appear 'hip'"
Evan: "I'm coming for you, you know you'll have to buy it all sooner or later, try not to insult me with your next offer!"
Zuck: "In your dreams kid!"
I think Zuckerberg is extremely paranoid about Facebook being displaced. Facebook knocked MySpace off the throne, and everyone predicted Facebook would suffer the same fate. It hasn't happened because Zuckerberg has been strategically paranoid.
Even after getting a slow start in mobile, he threw ridiculous amounts of money at the situation until they were back on top.
I think the present-day VR hype is due to Zuckerberg being paranoid that VR would be the next mobile, and wanting to get ahead of it. Everyone followed his lead and people are betting the farm on VR being the next big thing, when that's just not clear at all. But for Facebook, spending $2B on Oculus was an ounce-of-prevention purchase.
Surely he (Zuck) will run out of cash and stock with which to make $20 billion dollar acquisitions sooner rather than later?
While Facebook may be less hip than it once was, the company now owns mobile (Facebook, Instagram, Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp). They would have loved to had Snapchat too.