Facebook, Instagram, Ben Bernanke: Thank You For the New Tech Bubble 124
pigrabbitbear writes "Those who continue to inflate the tech bubble will be quick to remind us all of how they've learned from the past. That this time, it's simply different. They do have a point. Silicon Valley (and Alley) have matured. Startups these days are focused, driven, and efficient, creating products that people actually use. In a period of less than a year after its launch, Instagram was used by 5 million users, who by August of 2011 had uploaded 150 million photos. But even with these impressive results, it's impossible to ignore the fact that many of the fundamental economic factors that led the first bubble remain."
A couple other readers contributed similar articles — Instagram's sale seems to have solidified the idea for many that we're in the midst of another tech bubble, though some are more certain about it than others.
focused and driven (Score:4, Insightful)
yeah, they're focused on money and driven by greed.
Revenues? (Score:5, Insightful)
So it sold for a billion dollars.
It must have had some serious revenue to make it worth that much.
It didn't?
Then we've learned nothing from the last bubble.
Products (Score:5, Insightful)
"Startups these days are focused, driven, and efficient, creating products that people actually use."
Creating products that people use is easy. Creating products that people will pay to use is the hard part.
Re:Revenues? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Products (Score:2, Insightful)
I would argue that it isn't. People pay to use facebook, and they pay quite a bit ------> Privacy. That is the new currency.
While it is terrifying, I find it fascinating that we're actively having our old currency replaced by an entirely new one.
Re:Products (Score:3, Insightful)
Creating products that people will pay to use is the hard part.
Instragram wasn't created for the monkeys shooting pictures at each other. It was created for the advertisers that pay for monkey's eyeballs. They do indeed pay.
Easier and cheaper ways to do that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or you dump 1/10th of that money ($100 million) into creating your own app that does the exact same thing and is tied to Facebook.
And you've saved $900 million. Which can be used for other projects or acquisitions.
If we have, I don't see it.
The dotcom bubble was all about the IPO or selling to someone bigger and becoming an instant multi-millionaire.
We have the huge IPO's again and now we're seeing the massive purchase prices of systems without viable revenue streams.
Not particularly different... (Score:4, Insightful)
Startups these days are focused, driven, and efficient, creating products that people actually use.
Having users with no business plan to monetize that popularity isn't particularly different than having no users at all... I think the same held true in the late 90s, there was the interest and the users, but a lack of sold plans to translate that into something economically feasible.
Big deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
...creating products that people actually use.
So? People using your product isn't the point of business. Making a profit off of people using your product is the point. That's why we had the dot-com bubble: nobody could make any money off of this new-fangled internet thingy.
Replacement for advertising-based startups (Score:4, Insightful)
Any startup where advertising is the stated (or likely will become) the source of revenue, could be replaced. With what? With something like networks (in the old sense, as in TV networks) where "producers" create "shows" that run on the network. In other words, "Facebook, brought to you on NBC Internet by Sudso. Sudso. The soap that cleans your mind".
The current process of angels, VCs, etc makes a lot of money for some people. OTOH, it seems rather inefficient compared to the old network model. If Groupon were a gameshow, it would make money for the network, give away some prizes, and eventually get cancelled when people lose interest. Ditto for myspace. The whole process of taking these shows through early rounds all the way to IPO is just way too cumbersome.
As an added bonus, the "shows" might have a greater incentive to support things such as porting your data to the next "show", whereas in our current realm they have an interest in making their site "sticky".
I don't think privacy would be any better or any worse.
This model faces an uphill battle in terms of recruitment, I think. Producers expect the IPO pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. A studio job won't lure the big talent as easily.
I could be waaaay off the mark of course. Just idle speculation on a Friday afternoon...
Re:Easier and cheaper ways to do that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or you dump 1/10th of that money ($100 million) into creating your own app that does the exact same thing and is tied to Facebook.
They eliminated a competitor and (more or less) bought their user-base
The actual code isn't worth nearly as much.
Re:Revenues? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not necessarily revenue, but *potential* revenue, talent, or IP, and a customer base that wasn't already part of facebook.
He may also be seeing something that with the right investment will be worth hundreds of millions in revenue.
On talent: Deals like this usually stipulate that the leadership of the company being bought (in this case I'd guess that's most of the 13 employees) have to stick around for while or they lose shares or the like. He might be figuring they have a vision that can translate into users, or facetime on facebook, which would translate into revenue. He's also valued at probably 20 billion dollars so figuring someone else should be worth a hundred million wouldn't seem out of place.
IP. IP seems unlikely, but Instagram may own, or be able to acquire intellectual property rights on what they're doing, and that could put facebook in a bad position if it's dealing with them by duplicating their service.
Instagram customers may not be facebook customers. When you have 800 million users it's pretty hard to see where you're going to get many more from. There are only 7 billion people on the planet, half are too old or too young to be on facebook, another large blob are too poor, or illiterate or both to have internet access and facebook. Leaving, on a good day, ~2 billion potential facebook users. And some of them really don't like facebook (including half the /. crowd) so they won't be customers no matter what. He may be figuring that for a billion dollars he can increase his 'user' base from 800 - 850 or 900 million, which would increase facebooks value by 5-10 billion dollars.
In terms of future revenue he may be seeing something the rest of us aren't thinking about too much. Ads are probably worth more the more time you're on a page. Instagram may attract more facetime for existing users, as in they'll be online longer, and therefore can get more ads spewed at them, additionally getting them in the facebook team early would be preferable to having to buy them out later when they may be worth 2 billion dollars. He may know what we don't, which is how much an extra minute of time on facebook is worth, and how many minutes people are spending on instagram
Facebook is probably also paying largely with facebook stock. That means the valuation is a paper one, not a real one. You work for facebook, you get facebook stock, and if facebook tanks they aren't on the hook for anything particularly cash wise.
And he might just figure with the right investment there's could be a product worth selling.
Of course he could be completely wrong on any or all of those counts. But this is a good time for potential future shareholders to see just how much power "Zuck" really has at facebook, and whether or not they want to be involved with that.
We live in a fraud driven, violently unstable.. (Score:4, Insightful)
We live in a fraud driven, violently unstable economy, a massive Ponzi scheme masquerading as an economic model!
It doesn't work, it can't work!
It WILL destroy itself.