Hacker News Reader

Comment by azharcs | Hacker News Reader

I totally agree with O'Reilly, Companies like Slide and RockYou do not deserve half a billion valuation and I am pretty much sure Max Levchin can do better than make social apps for Social-Networks.

View on HN

How do you decide what's worth half a billion dollars? If a social network app will drive half a billion dollars worth of advertising profit over N years, then it's worth half a billion dollars, even if the same effort is better spent combating malaria.

I think he recognises that - the article quotes him as saying "I really believe in markets, and I believe in the power we all have to build great companies that change things.".

Do you really think SuperPoke or Top Friends has the potential to make a Billion, I really don't think so. Throwing a sheep or sending a drink is of no value, it might excite someone in short-term but it really has no value in long-term business sense.

That's a silly argument. "Mad Men" is of no tangible value, but it drives a huge amount of advertising revenue.

You are getting it wrong, We are talking about Half a Billion Dollar worth Businesses not some tv shows. Are these Companies or products worth the money they are valued at, Are they creating sustainable businesses and products and Are they helping or improving technology and community as a whole.

One season of the 24 tv show can bring in over 200 million dollars in ad revenue.

Television and other ad funded entertainment are certainly not small business.

Rephrasing the question then: is SuperPoke worth 5 seasons of 24? Which would you rather collect profits from?

Are they asking rhetorical questions without the correct punctuation.

Advertising revenues on social networks have historically been pretty poor.

I think what O'Reilly was getting at was people forming their startups that essentially chase the latest trends in what now amounts to a bubble. He makes a valid argument and we could all be looking back at what he said in the future and only realize then just how spot on he was.

I think you're probably right, but I also think there's a lazy argument out there that you could go halt malaria instead of making ad money, and that's a stupid argument; make the ad money and spend it on malaria if you're that committed.

You don't have to fight malaria or stop making money form ads. If you're going to make an ad supported app at least make it do something useful (GMail is one example of a useful ad supported app).

That's an argument against the entire entertainment industry. This is a debate over aesthetics, and I don't have much more to say about it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com