Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Businesses The Almighty Buck

SnapChat Turns Down $3 Billion Offer From Facebook 188

Dr Herbert West writes about a reported $3 billion offer from Facebook that Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel turned down. "Snapchat, a rapidly growing messaging service, recently spurned an all-cash acquisition offer from Facebook for close to $3 billion or more, according to people briefed on the matter. The offer, and rebuff, came as Snapchat is being wooed by other investors and potential acquirers. Chinese e-commerce giant Tencent Holdings had offered to lead an investment that would value two-year-old Snapchat at $4 billion. Evan Spiegel, Snapchat’s 23-year-old co-founder and CEO, will not likely consider an acquisition or an investment at least until early next year, the people briefed on the matter said. They said Spiegel is hoping Snapchat’s numbers – of users and messages – will grow enough by then to justify an even larger valuation, the people said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SnapChat Turns Down $3 Billion Offer From Facebook

Comments Filter:
  • by OverlordQ ( 264228 ) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @02:22AM (#45420335) Journal


    • Never heard of SnapChat before.

      But for some reason, I find myself now wondering whether "ChatFish" is still available for trademark use, and what I would do with it if I had it.

      • Nevermind [].

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14, 2013 @03:51AM (#45420613)

        Never heard of SnapChat before

        I've heard of it because my children are using it

        It's basking in it's 15-minute worth of glory

        If that guy isn't selling now, I don't think he will have a lot of time left before someone deflate that 3Billion price tag

        • by Dogtanian ( 588974 ) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @09:30AM (#45421843) Homepage

          I've heard of it because my children are using it It's basking in it's 15-minute worth of glory

          I've heard of it, but never used it. I know that it's an app that lets you send images ("snaps") to others that appear on their phone for a number of seconds before allegedly disappearing irretrievably. (*) That's it. It sounds like a "tens of millions of dollars if it *really* takes off" business, not a $3bn one.

          Yes, I appreciate that with these things, it's as much the established user base that's more important, but I don't see how this can have the all-encompassing network effect that will lock users in to the same extent as with Facebook itself. It's not like your social life is going to end if you stop using it (or have I missed something?) and it's a one trick pony that's vulnerable to becoming boring- and abandoned- by the notoriously fickle teenage demographic who are its primary users. What's stopping anyone else from doing something similar or better?

          So, yeah. It's definitely not worth $3bn, and this is definitely "bubble" territory. The guy no doubt thinks he'll get more from other people- personally, if I was in his position, I'd take the money and run even if there was a possibility of $4bn... the possibility of the bubble bursting before you see that and the company losing 90% of its value is a real possibility.

          Especially if the obvious hole in the deletion mechanism becomes more widely known and more widely exploited and/or a story breaks that the images *aren't* being deleted from Snapchat's servers after downloading as they claim and/or someone else has access to them, e.g. the NSA. While 14-year-olds sending underage nude pics of themselves to their girl/boyfriend won't be bothered about the legality, they might be more put off by the fact that they're out there permanently or being viewed by some middle-aged guy in a government agency. (The "old enough to be their Dad" bit being applicable here, not the government).

          (*) Because we all know that once you've uploaded something to another user's device that's out of your control, there's no prospect of them getting round the auto-deletion, except where there is, and I heard of workarounds some time back.

          • by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @10:25AM (#45422261) Homepage

            One obvious workaround that I can think of: Screen capture. On my phone (Droid Bionic), pressing the Volume Down + Power button for a few seconds takes a photo of the screen no matter what app I'm in. Most other phones have a similar capability (though the actual method for this may vary). So if someone sent me a SnapChat photo, I could save a screenshot of it on my phone. While the original would "expire" and be unavailable, my screenshot version would remain for me to keep looking at or send to other people.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              From what I understand, SnapChat will detect that you have done this and let the other person know you grabbed a screenshot of the image. While this won't stop you from having a copy of that particular image, it will warn the other person not to send you any new ones in the future.
              • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

                From what I understand, SnapChat will detect that you have done this and let the other person know you grabbed a screenshot of the image. While this won't stop you from having a copy of that particular image, it will warn the other person not to send you any new ones in the future.

                Until iOS7 broke that. I don't know if Android SnapChat can detect it, but I know iOS prior to 7 it detected it as well (because for some reason you had to put your finger on the screen so the app detected THAT). Of course in iOS7

              • Also, they make it slightly difficult (but definitely not impossible). To view the snap, you must be touching the screen--so you have to hold that in place while you do the screenshot dance with your other fingers.

                They also let you set the timer on the photo, so you could give someone a nice generous 10 seconds, or you could say they get to see it for 2. Some phones require a second or so of holding the buttons to get a screenshot, so if the image is only there for 2 seconds, you had better be really fa

              • Just take a picture with another phone or camera: "dude Tiffany just sent me a snap chat let me borrow your phone before i look at it I'm going to take a picture so she doesn't know I have it!" But the teens dumb enough to send nude photos of themselves are the same ones not smart enough to know people are doing that. All it takes is one kid in a school figuring out to just take photos with another device and the entire school will stop using snapchat, making snapchat not even worth 3 million. It's a fa
                • Also, who told Wall Street journal about this 3 billion? I didn't see any sources in the article. I think this 3 billion dollar reject sounds fake. Did Facebook report this or did Snapchat make this claim?
    • by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @03:28AM (#45420563)

      Images you can't forget but can't see after 30 seconds.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        But contain pictures of people connected with the phone owner, GPS info, possible objects of interest to the person taking or receiving the pictures, possibilities of marketing campaigns with the best SnapChat evolving product X, etc... There's a lot you can do with it if you look beneath the surface. A small SnapChat app update lets them data mine everything in your phone.

    • by rvw ( 755107 )

      Actually, it doesn't grow larger. If they had accepted the offer, then yes. Now it's just waiting and hopefully we'll see this specific bubble snap soon enough.

      • by mcgrew ( 92797 ) *

        Indeed, three BILLION dollars and he turned it down?? How fucking greedy can a human (and I use that term loosely) get? Jesus, I'd have taken the three billion, sent 2/3rds to help those poor fuckers in the Philippines and still had enough cash for me and everyone I know to live in luxury the rest of our lives.

        I hope the stupid kid goes broke.

    • They should taken the offer before everything goes *pop*.
      • by SpzToid ( 869795 )

        It's ok. Evan Spiegel is 23 years old. He's got his whole life ahead of him. He'll bound to learn from this one way or the other. (And failure, should it happen, is good, right?)

        Kudos for not selling out to Facebook! That took a lot of balls to walk away, leaving all that money on the table. The world is probably a better place for it. I still wish Skype hadn't been sold to Microsoft.

        • I doubt that SnapChat will gain significantly more value in the future, FB (or other already-popular networks) can simply roll out a similar service and crush them. And the success of social apps like these is not due to any brilliant little invention, the founder's marketing savvy, or flawless execution. These are factors, but the biggest factors a luck and timing (which also involves a great deal of luck). I don't think Zuckerberg would have stumbled on a new grand success if he had sold out FB early o
        • by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @09:52AM (#45421981) Homepage Journal

          all we have about this is really just snapchat arranged rumours(non sec, non financial laws liable) about it - from a company that sooner or later needs a buyout because the company getting bought out IS THE BUSINESS PLAN. so either him or people who own shares in it arranged this leak - or even more likely they fabricated it. I can't see why facebook would really offer 3 billion for it(they have most of the snapchat users already too, so there's that as well).

          now they can go around looking for investors - implying that they have a 3 billion valuation - without actually saying that they're worth 3 billion(which might get them into hot water, lying when trying to secure securities usually tends to be a crime..). they already laid it out that they're probably looking for some investment early next year, so they're already negotiating, for more likely something like another 70-100 million - which with a reasonable look at the company would be all the company is worth(0 revenue), so they're going to be using this to sell let's say 10% of the company for 100 million(which is a bargain if the company really was valued at 3 billion).

          with their current business model it's just a question who is the sucker that gets to keep the money burning zero profiting service.

    • Snapchat sounds kind of like the antithesis of facebook. Facebook wants to keep a permanent record of everything you ever do, whereas this is more about quickly sending information and then redacting it (redacting because you can't erase it from the person's brain without the use of an amnesia ray.)

    • I'm pretty sure you could put together a damned fancy chat system for a lot less than 3 billion dollars. Assuming you didn't just want to throw together an IRC or jabber server. Of course, they're more after the established user base, which they will start alienating as soon as they acquire the company. It'd be a bit harder to jam advertisements down the throats of users on IRC or Jabber.

      I'm also pretty sure you could buy a number of companies with actual tangible assets and much more interesting IP for a

      • They're buying the users, not the application. My guess is those users fit a demographic that Facebook is lacking in.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14, 2013 @02:22AM (#45420339)

    Zynga, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, Skype, and the list keeps on growing.

    Investors know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

    • by Mitreya ( 579078 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [ayertim]> on Thursday November 14, 2013 @03:15AM (#45420525)

      Zynga, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, Skype, and the list keeps on growing.

      I think you forgot Facebook :)

      Investors know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

      Big investors that got preferential price (and early access to all relevant information) made out just fine. The mere mortal investors might lose money, but that's a feature, not a bug.

    • by billstewart ( 78916 ) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @05:00AM (#45420837) Journal

      Google reportedly offered Groupon $6B and was turned down; the company's probably worth about $6 by now.

      Facebook offered SnapChat $3B? As long as it's in cash, not Facebook stock, there's only one right thing to do, which is to take the money and run. (Or take the money and stick around, if that's the deal, but take the money. Do not play Go, Do not pass up $3B.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Groupon is worth US$6.86 billion right now. In hindsight, turning Google's offer down was a wise move.

        But please don't let facts get in the way of your anti-capitalist parade.

        When you're offered an obscene amount of money for your property, you don't just blurt out a Yes or No. You consult with lawyers, accountants, CFAs/CFPs, etc. before making a decision.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14, 2013 @07:33AM (#45421345)

          Right, because market cap is be-all and end-all metric of company's worth, especially when considering acquisition.

        • This reminds of a line in the movie, "Entrapment".

          In this case, the line would be: What can you buy with $6.68 Billion that you can't buy with $6 Billion. It was dumb for Groupon not to sell out. Just as it was dumb for the Snapchat guys not to sell out.

          When you're in billion dollar territory, you've made it. You can spend the rest of your life trying to grow a $3 Billion company into a $10 Billion company, but the odds and history are greatly stacked against you. You can invest and grow that money into the

          • by Quirkz ( 1206400 )

            No kidding. I don't know exactly where my "just call it good" threshold is, but I'd guess it's much closer to $100 million than even a billion. At those numbers, more or less gets pretty irrelevant pretty fast. At $3 billion, I'd rather just sign the paper and be set for eternity than leave uncertainty and doubt hanging over me for another second while quibbling about an extra billion, more or less.

        • But please don't let facts get in the way of your anti-capitalist parade.

          He didn't say anything anti-capitalist. And I'm a capitalist, so I think I'd have noticed.

        • Groupon is worth US$6.86 billion right now. In hindsight, turning Google's offer down was a wise move.

          That $6.86 billion is after investors pumped $700 million into it in the IPO, so more of a neutral move than a wise one.

    • How much are your eyes worth?

      Is it really a bubble and are these people really undervalued? All of these services boast hundreds of millions of active uses each month. That's a lot of potential eyes. For an advertising opportunity how much are those eyes actually worth? 1c each? 10c each? How many companies would line up to advertise to such a wide user base?

      Some of these companies have no income now, but they have a HUGE user base. If it can be monetised with advertising there'd be massive earning potentia

      • by afxgrin ( 208686 ) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @08:30AM (#45421539)

        From what I can see, Snapchat has no revenue. They don't get anything, zero, ziltch - unless image EXIF data is worth something. No ads, no software sales (it's free!). Unless they've been saving on their servers every single pic/video sent from people's phones to later use for extortion I'd say they are pretty worthless besides a user base that's already installed on Facebook.

        The user base would likely go into free fall if Facebook took them over anyway, because we absolutely know those guys would archive every single piece of information.

        • ALL of these social whatevers start out by offering a free service. Once you are popular, you start adding ads, mine and sell user data, or sell the whole thing lock stock & barrel to a whale like FB.
          • by afxgrin ( 208686 )

            And many of them go belly up soon after. All it takes is a slight popular shift and the whole thing falls apart - just look at MySpace. Snapchat I think made a big mistake holding out for another buyer, because I don't think any other company would offer the synergy that their service would have with Facebook.

            Who're they going to sell to now? Yahoo? Google? Maybe Twitter... I think they missed their golden pay cheque.

      • by gmack ( 197796 )

        I remember this exact logic right before we had the huge dot-com crash in the early 2000s. If it's not making revenue now it is dangerous to assume just throwing ads on it will somehow make it turn a profit rather than turn users off the product.

        • by spoot ( 104183 )

          Jaron Lanier: “Funding a civilization through advertising is like trying to get nutrition by connecting a tube from one’s anus to one’s mouth.”

  • ads (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14, 2013 @02:34AM (#45420375)

    the minute they monetize Snapchat with ads kids will stop using it

  • by magic maverick ( 2615475 ) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @02:36AM (#45420381) Homepage Journal

    I know that if I was offered 3 billion dollars for some fade chat program, I'd take it! Even if it was from arch-evil FaceBook. Of course, maybe they think they can get more. And more to the point, that 3 bil is not going just to one person, it's being spread out over the shareholders and vulture capitalists, as well as the founders (if they are still around). But still!

    • by jrumney ( 197329 ) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @02:41AM (#45420407)

      Vulture capitalists would never turn down 3 billion dollars. They may be vultures, but they know very well when to cash out.

      • by girlintraining ( 1395911 ) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @03:00AM (#45420467)

        Vulture capitalists would never turn down 3 billion dollars. They may be vultures, but they know very well when to cash out.

        You never accept the first offer. There's negotiation. It doesn't matter what the offer is for, or the conditions, etc. When you're selling, you don't take the first offer. Ever. Because once an offer's made, that's a signal that it's feeding time. Sharks do not hunt alone.

        • Maybe, or maybe you take the first offer because it is insanely high.

          Pigs get fed, hogs get slaughtered. $3 Billion Dollars is a lot of money, is holding out for $4 Billion worth the risk of getting nothing?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by EdIII ( 1114411 )

          I dunno. There are limits to that kind of approach.

          We are talking about $3 billion. With a fucking capital B. How much is Snapchat at now in total investment with the shareholders? If all parties are in for maybe $20 million, that $3 billion starts to look like one hell of a successful exit plan.

          I would take the first offer in a split second if it was at a couple hundred times the initial investment. Take it, move on, innovate someplace else.

          Unless you had some sort of ideological reason not to. Only thing

        • 3 billion was the second offer, the first was 1.

          • I think this is one of the reasons I'm not rich. I would jump on the first offer that netted me enough money to no work for the rest of my life. It seems like the only people who run these businesses just can't get enough. 10 million dollars divided by 70 years (I probably won't live much past 100), would mean I could spend 142 thousand dollars a year, every year, for the rest of my life. And that's not even counting Interest. Once you own a house, you can live off a pretty small amount of money.
        • by aendeuryu ( 844048 ) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @04:25AM (#45420719)

          This sounds a lot like the advice Groupon got.

        • I don't know. If the first offer to me was $3 Billion, I'd be hard pressed to stop dancing around the room shouting "YES!!!!!" Keeping a straight face would be really difficult and asking for more would be impossible.

          Heck, if I was the owner of SnapChat and you offered me $500 million, I'd sell out. I'm not greedy.

        • I'll give you $3B for your car.

      • Vulture capitalists would never turn down 3 billion dollars.

        They would if they have reason to believe a better offer would be forthcoming or that the company is worth significantly more than the offered price.

  • by jcr ( 53032 ) < .ta. .rcj.> on Thursday November 14, 2013 @02:36AM (#45420383) Journal

    When someone offers you $3B for a company with no revenues and a product that could be duplicated in a week, take the money and RUN.

    FB must be brain-dead to offer that much, and Snapchat is insane to turn it down.


    • by aaronb1138 ( 2035478 ) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @03:05AM (#45420483)
      Or Facebook knew they would decline the first offer out of hand, and is just baiting would-be competitors to blow giant piles of money on a boondoggle. Zuckerburg strikes me as that kind of brilliant and calculating. Even if they had taken the $3B offer, Facebook could easily have made the acquisition terms so onerous as to make it stillborn.
      • With $3B at stake, that would be pretty risky poker play for Facebook. If Facebook knows it is a boondoggle, it is likely that SnapChat's owners know it too, so their best action would be to take the money and run.
    • Maybe the NSA offered Facebook even more to acquire all of these embarrassing videos and other personal information? :p Or maybe the info is worth that to Facebook themselves. I would have thought they had enough already though..

    • > When someone offers you $3B for a company with no revenues and a product that could be duplicated in a week, take the money and RUN.

      You could duplicate the website in a week and nobody would care (just like I could make a social website "just like facebook" and nobody would care).

      Facebook is not interested in snapchat, it's interested in _the marketshare of snapchat_. A good way to get that would be to get the strings behind snapchat and make sure they're the ones who pull on them. That's worth billion

      • Particularly the marketshare among teens and young-20s who Facebook is losing.
      • Facebooks acquisitions are going to be based on market share or the threat that a company presents to facebook's product. I think Snapchat satisfies both of these requirements. It has a decently large market share that can be exploited. Additionally, the very model of snapchat is entirely contradictory to what facebook sells (tons of information about you). By buying up Snapchat they prevent another organization from possibly using it agains them in an effort to break facebook's social media grasp.

    • by haruchai ( 17472 )

      I believe we all lost any perspective of the value of money back in the '80s and have never regained our senses.

    • You can collect two years worth of sexts in a week?

      The blackmail value against the future leaders of America easily exceeds $3b.

    • They are not buying just the app. They are buying their brand and user base.

  • FTFY (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jrumney ( 197329 ) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @02:38AM (#45420391)

    Snapchat, a rapidly growing messaging service, recently spurned an all-cash acquisition offer from Facebook for close to $3 billion or more, according to people with a vested interest in the company's valuation.

    • by gl4ss ( 559668 )

      yeah unless there's an official, sec legit, pr piece about it.. then it is just pumping. pumping pumping pumping.

      I'd suspect they would sell it for a billion dollars, were you to have the money in hand.

      it's shit simple product..

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14, 2013 @03:04AM (#45420477)

    .. an honest company that says "sorry, we're aren't worth so much"

  • by spiffmastercow ( 1001386 ) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @03:04AM (#45420479)
    I really don't understand how the "new" tech companies command such a high price point for such worthless products. Somehow Twitter is worth more than Redhat, FB is worth more than MS, and Zynga is worth more than EA? I get that there is value in novelty, and that some of the older companies may not be innovating the way they used to, but how is it possible that something trivial like Snapchat is worth more than a couple mil?
    • Pump and dump... MS and EA are far more likely to be here in 10 years, Redhat and Zynga might or might not be, but investors can move their stock price more via fluff news, so they focus there.

      MS and EA are just cash machines, not very exciting.

    • by EdIII ( 1114411 ) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @03:41AM (#45420593)


      With rapidly declining advertising revenues in the traditional distribution channels due to a fundamental shift in the way people are consuming entertainment, there is a massive glut of advertising budgets and an absolute panic in the marketing douchebag asshole fucktard executives world.

      Twitter provides massive amounts of data for marketers to masturbate over and determine just what is in our little pea brains at the moment and what we might buy. Value to marketing? HIGH.

      Redhat makes operating systems. Value to marketing? LOW.

      FB is the poster child for not just marketing data, but the destination for the attention deficit order generation to get their communication fix, consume entertainment, and progressively more and more, obtain news about what goes on in the world. Do I understand it? Not one fucking bit. Shoot me first. Is it valuable to marketing? Apparently extremely valuable. Every business out there is fumbling around with consultants and 3rd party vendors to get a FB presence up and running.

      MS makes operating systems, office collaboration software, database systems, a beginning attempt at a phone system, and a complete failure in the entertainment market. Value to marketers? Moderate, and only in the form of crapware.

      Zynga is valuable for the same reason as FB.

      EA? I dunno about those assholes. Ever since most of those companies went full retard with DLC, DRM, and general stupidity I don't play video games from them anymore. I'm into the indie stuff out there. Surprising quality from most stuff Humble Bundle sells.

    • by PCM2 ( 4486 ) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @03:42AM (#45420601) Homepage

      Somehow Twitter is worth more than Redhat, FB is worth more than MS, and Zynga is worth more than EA?

      Errr... apparently Twitter IS worth more than Red Hat, but Zynga's market cap is less than half that of EA and Facebook's is less than half that of Microsoft.

    • Somehow Twitter is worth more than Redhat

      How many users does Redhat have. How many users does Twitter have? In the case of Redhat, how many of those users actually spend money on the product? Which one of these companies has a communication medium embraced by most teenagers, media, TV shows, is deemed important enough to include most celebrities and politicians?

      FB is worth more than MS

      Which one is the company with growth potential, that somehow knows everything about almost everybody, and which company has shown a complete inability to innovate in any market over the la

  • by future assassin ( 639396 ) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @03:11AM (#45420511) Homepage

    they want their bubble back as your offer sucked.

    WTF has happened to the world. how the fuck can a chat service be worth 3 billion. You could equip every being in Africa with a generator, gas and the tools to create a new life with that much money,

    • You could equip every being in Africa with a generator, gas and the tools to create a new life with that much money,

      Well no, you couldn't, but it would be a heck of a start. :)

      The people in Africa largely need clean drinking water before they need anything else. And an education, and stable governments, and a bunch of other things. :)

      • by ae1294 ( 1547521 )

        hey now give the guy a break he has standard oil stock and new stocks in the generator sector and was trying to do his own pump on this pump story... I heard you like pumping so he put in moar pumping action...

  • If they turned down $3 billion, they eventually will learn that it was a really stupid mistake.
  • The average guy will never earn that kind of money (with a legal job that is). Next year, he missed it and crashed and burned ?

  • by hirschma ( 187820 ) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @04:24AM (#45420711)

    Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them. []

  • by linuxguy ( 98493 ) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @04:29AM (#45420741) Homepage

    Reminds of the time when Yahoo turned down $47.5B from Microsoft in 2008. They have regretted it since.

  • by tyrione ( 134248 ) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @05:45AM (#45420977) Homepage
    . to flood SnapChat with $3 Billion to get them out of the market and under their growing conglomeration. Believe it or not, these guys might be onto something that will knee cap Facebook, and they know it.
  • What saddens me is not that they refused because they want to stay in control of their own company and product, but because they're holding out for a higher offer.

    Apparently that's the only reason you'd need to run a company: get noticed for a buyout.

    • <sarcasm>Oh, the horror of it! Inventors and entrepreneurs getting rewarded for what they do best, namely come up with new stuff and start companies around that! It must be stopped! If they aren't prepared to spend the next few decades slowly going crazy with day-to-day operations of some boring large corporation, they shouldn't found companies at all!</sarcasm>

  • If it really is true that Facebook offered them this much money (this is by no means certain, it could just be an attempt to inflate valuation) and they actually turned it down, it could well be that they feared that a due dillegence may cause Facebook to turn away, something which would hurt their floatation if they decided to do an IPO.

    If your company isn't worth nearly as much as you like to present to the outside world, you don't really want close scrutiny.

  • If Snapchat has any value at all (given how poor their software seems to be), it's that they are not part of Facebook or Google.

    Of course, what this is really about is that Facebook is afraid that people will start communicating using some other platform, so they are trying to buy up and kill any potential competitor.

  • by clovis ( 4684 ) * on Thursday November 14, 2013 @09:33AM (#45421855)

    A nearly worthless no-revenue software company gets a $3 billion offer? Sounds like the 1990's again.
    I need to have a look at dumping all my tech stocks, hopefully _before_ the crash this time.

  • Perspective (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stealth_finger ( 1809752 ) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @10:07AM (#45422097)
    So $3 billion offer for a website/app, some paintings sell for $142 million, and people moaned about India spending $75 million on sending a rocket to fucking Mars. What the fuck is wrong with some people.
  • Varius articles have said [] snapchat image files may not be erased, but just hidden from the file system. (I have not verified this myself.)
  • Obviously, I don't mean Snapchat is the same as Digg, but rather that they are making the same mistake as Digg. After all, Digg did turn down $200 million from Google and was eventually sold for only $500k only 4 years later [].

The intelligence of any discussion diminishes with the square of the number of participants. -- Adam Walinsky