Comment by argumentum | Hacker News Reader

Comment by argumentum | Hacker News Reader

To everyone calling this symptomatic of a "bubble", remember that WhatsApp was not hyped like SnapChat or Instagram. It wasn't associated with "sexting" or plugged by Celebrities. A few years ago, my cousin arrived from India to start undergrad here .. when picking out her new smartphone, here was only one requirement: it had to run WhatsApp. She didn't care whether it was an iPhone, android or blackberry (back when bb's were a thing). She didn't care about the camera or processor speed. Her decision was based on a measly little app that I'd never heard of. WhatsApp just made something people wanted, badly.

It's even profitable, for crying out loud.

Whether this is a good decision and price for Facebook is to be determined. Many thought Google overpaid for Youtube and FB overpaid for Instagram, and look how those turned out. In addition Zuckerberg likely thought that much like losing image sharing, losing messaging would pose an existential threat to Facebook.

Zuck's strategic track record has been stellar, all the way back to the beginnings of Facebook. The one "mistake" he admitted to (HTML5 vs native) was corrected promptly and thoroughly. I'm willing to bet he's got a much better handle on these things than given credit for. I'm long on FB and buying on any dips.

None of the things you mention matter, frankly. Nobody is claiming whatsapp is worthless. It's the valuation. Just because your users are passionate doesn't mean you deserve a high valuation. And something missed here is that Indian, SE Asian users, et al aren't that valuable in terms of how much money you can make displaying mobile ads to them.

> Just because your users are passionate doesn't mean you deserve a high valuation

No one "deserves" any particular valuation: those numbers come from how much people are willing to pay, and how little you're willing to sell.

Due to the post acquisition success of Instagram, companies like SnapChat and WhatsApp have more leverage than their predecessors in these negotiations. Thus, they command higher valuations.

WhatsApp, though of course a Valley company, seemed to have been "discovered" overseas. It famously doesn't have ads and instead charges $1/year (which its users are willing to pay). In the short term, yes, India/SE Asia are less lucrative markets per person, but in the long term they have greater potential for growth. With the numbers as they are, looks like Zuckerberg intends this as a long term play.

What was the timing for the html5 vs native decisions and corrections?

I'm assuming you're talking about the mobile applications running slowly for the first few years. I uninstalled a year ago and haven't checked back. I'm curious how things run these days.

And is the debate mainly focused on when webapps will take over? Or is it debated if it will occur at all?

I think with mobile hardware gaining so quickly we should see webapps equaling native within five years.

A company like Facebook has the resources to build whatever type of app is justified by the current market. If and when HTML5 gains parity with native apps, which I also agree will happen, Facebook can go back to HTML5.

But tech moves quick, you can't just wait around for a fundamental shift like that. You have to build for now and plan for later, in my opinion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com