203 karma · joined December 31, 2011
the problem is, even if it is a great steamer, how many of your friends would have android phones or tablets?
If this is a fluke, why would anyone expect the developers to be able to replicate the success on other games in the future? I think I read somewhere the current run-rate revenue of draw is around 100k a day. But you would expect that to tail off when it reaches saturation. Probably most of that comes from the initial purchase, rather than in game purchases. So you're looking at more than 6x of current revenue which will decrease over time, just to break even on the purchase, and not counting expenses.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the developers are talented, and they deserve getting paid. The only people losing are the shareholders of Zynga, and less the management, since they've been dumping the stock. I think Zynga is probably under a lot of pressure to diversify it's revenue away from Facebook, as well as grow the revenue to justify it's valuation.
Comparing acq of OMGPOP to Youtube is just silly.
Can anyone make a case that paying 180mm for a drawing game makes rational financial sense? Of course, Zynga probably paid with it's overinflated stock, so it's more like AOL buying Time Warner at the peak
just look at the evidence,
-founders of the most successful startups are always in their 20s or 30s. They don't have 20 years of programming experience.
-ruby, python, objective C are all fairly new
It means that a 50 year old programmer with 20 years of programming experience doesn't have too many advantages in learning these new languages / environments compared to a fresh college grad. In addition the 50 year old probably has a family and kids and other social obligations that reduces the amount of time he has to learn.
In other industries where the innovation isn't as fast, and the entire environment changes every 10 years, there is more value in seniority and experience.