Hacker News Reader

Comment by nilkn | Hacker News Reader

Snapchat is already a very rich company. The founders are probably indifferent to the wealth at this point.

I also think a lot of people (myself included) find it hard to comprehend how much money can be made selling stickers in messaging apps. It's mind-boggling, and Snapchat, processing 350+ million messages a day, is in a very strong position to leverage that eventually.

All that said, I'd accept a $3B cash offer in a heartbeat if I were in their shoes. I wouldn't be confident in Snapchat's long-term survival. It might double its user base in the next year and then swiftly die when the next fad comes along. I feel that timing will be critical here. If they wait too long, they could lose it all.

View on HN

Exactly. They can afford to be a little greedy, but shouldn't push their luck. Their success as of now is very much based on the vogue factor. Geocities sold for over 3.5 billion, on the verge of the dot-com collapse.

Would you care to elaborate on how they're a "very rich company"?

(Edit: I actually read the article after my post and saw the section about Benchmark Capital's $13 million investment. The rest of my comments still stand...)

Now if you meant they have built such a large following that a buyout is inevitable, and/or they stand to make a lot of money by introducing a business model into the equation, then I'd agree. However, that does not change the fact that the owners are incredibly greedy not to accept a $3 billion cash offer, especially considering the fact that there's no guarantee they can come up with a viable business model at all. Now that they've turned down an arguably hugely inflated offer, they may have made a huge mistake in the long run.

Let's not forget that Snapchat isn't exactly a difficult product to clone, and the only thing going for them right now is user numbers. If they introduce a poor money-making mechanism into it, users will not hesitate to flock to the "next big thing" instead of forking over cash or dealing with intrusive ads.

that does not change the fact that the owners are incredibly greedy not to accept a $3 billion cash offer

Hard-nosed seems like a better term. In many cases indistinguishable by obserbation, but Greed is both pejorative and moralizing. Absent special knowledge of the principals state of mind, its use also seem presumptory.

>the owners are incredibly greedy not to accept a $3 billion cash offer

You can look at this another way -- Maybe greedy would be taking the life-changing amount of money here, and they're not because they actually like their jobs.

how much money can be made selling stickers in messaging apps

I'm not trying to be difficult; I really don't understand this statement. Are you talking about paper-and-adhesive stickers, like my kids use to plaster Strawberry Shortcake everywhere? What do those have to do with messaging apps?

This is what I was referring to:

http://thenextweb.com/asia/2013/07/12/stickers/

Line is now supposedly making $10M/month just from these stickers.

Oh. They're selling emoticons for $10M per month. Excuse me while my brain implodes.

Thank you for clearing that up though. I had no idea that such things existed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com