Hacker News Reader

Comment by gojomo | Hacker News Reader

On track to win my bet with jacquesm:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=689993 :)

As someone who actually spends a lot of money on Facebook ads and thus has a little more insight on where those revenues are coming from, I'll take jaquems side too.

A significant portion of that increase in revenues is due to ad policy changes and deals with branders rather than any type of growth that could be sustainable in the future.

I'm happy to take more action. (It's like a few shares of Facebook stock!)

Same amount, same terms? (FB revenue>$2B for 2014 I win, <$2B revenue you win, murky situations go to an HN poll?)

I don't think FB has yet found their revenue-rocket equivalent to AdWords -- current ads are not it -- but I think they will.

Allright, I'm down for $100 for the same terms, my email is in my profile so you know how to reach me.

What happens to the bet if FB is acquired?

On the original jacquesm bet, I suggested we use the apparent revenues of Facebook-as-a-division. That might be tricky to measure depending on the acquirer's reporting and integration plans, but as I suspect any acquirer will be -- (1) a giant public company with detailed quarterly reporting; and (2) eager to keep 'Facebook' as a separate brand/division -- I think it's ultimately resolvable to sufficient confidence for someone to concede (or defer to a poll result). However, if you prefer for an acquisition to mean "bet's off (no action)", I'd be OK with that, too.

Just express a preference before an acquisition happens, or my preference -- calculate it as a division -- should stand. (I like FB to make this revenue target standalone; I like them as part of Google/MSFT/Apple/Disney/etc.; I like them in a box, I like them with a fox; I like them in a house, I like them with a mouse.)

I'll take jacquesms position on that bet. You game to double down?

My bad, I'm with you gojomo. Thought you were taking the bet against growth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com