
Snap Inc. S-1 - harryh
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1564408/000119312517029199/d270216ds1.htm
======
stuckagain
"We have committed to spend $2 billion with Google Cloud over the next five
years and have built our software and computer systems to use computing,
storage capabilities, bandwidth, and other services provided by Google, some
of which do not have an alternative in the market."

There's some numbers for you that Google wouldn't have provided (as far as I
have seen).

~~~
leothekim
Is it not possible to build your own "alternative in the market" for $2
billion?

~~~
carlisle_
It is absolutely possible to build a stellar internal alternative to Google's
offerings in 5 years with 2 billion dollars.

edit: I should point out that this doesn't account for ramp-up. It would
obviously take awhile before things would be to a point where it would be even
comparable.

~~~
scarmig
Oracle is spending way more than 2 billion dollars on its cloud team in an
attempt to catch up to AWS, GCP, and Azure.

Would you consider Oracle's cloud endeavor a fair test of how able a company
is to reproduce GCP's offering with a fistful of money?

~~~
beamatronic
What I can't figure out is why Oracle didn't start down this road 10-20 years
ago. They more than anyone should have some ideas about scaling infrastructure
for databases.

~~~
dreamfactory2
sales led, not strategic, and it would have cannibalised their existing money
printing machine. imagine if they started offering their customers PAYG
elastic accounts rather than multi year mega provisioning deals - their
numbers would have been destroyed

------
synaesthesisx
Is anyone else seeing these numbers? How are they pushing for such a high
valuation with those kind of losses?

I suspect that Snap is merely capitalizing on traditional advertising metrics
(engagement, CTR) which don't translate over on their app, and the advertisers
just haven't caught on yet. People play with filters because they're
funny/amusing, but those impressions don't convert into purchases in the same
way other types of ads would.

Earlier last year Snapchat temporarily featured X-Men filters exclusively
ahead of the movie release - I interacted with those for the novelty (and
mainly because they disabled all the other filters so there were no other
options) but I did not see the movie.

Again, I'm not sure if they follow something similar to a CPC model or what,
but I bet it's expensive. If the advertisers decide it's ineffective their
newfound revenue growth certainly won't be sustainable.

~~~
joycey
> To generate excitement for X-Men: Apocalypse, 20th Century Fox ran a
> Sponsored Lens campaign that let users turn themselves into the iconic
> characters in the upcoming movie. In one day, people spent a collective 56
> years playing with the Sponsored Lenses, which also featured the mutants’
> powers. They also incorporated the Sponsored Lens into Snaps they shared
> with their friends, which yielded over 298 million views for the campaign
> and greatly amplified awareness and anticipation for the movie. The campaign
> resulted in a 13 percentage point increase in brand awareness, 7x the mobile
> norm, as measured by Millward Brown. More importantly, the Sponsored Lens
> also drove a 25% lift in theater-watch intent, over 3x the mobile norm.

Maybe the X-Men filters didn't get you to watch the film, but it certainly
worked on others.

~~~
JBlue42
>"drove a 25% lift in theater-watch intent"

Intent is not action.

~~~
batiudrami
But it is a way to compare ad effectiveness across mediums so what is your
point?

------
econner
Executive Compensation

    
    
      Name and Principal Position
            Year         Salary        Bonus(1)          Stock Awards(2)     All Other   Total
      Evan Spiegel
                2016     $ 503,205     $ 1,000,000       $ —                 $ 901,635   $ 2,404,840      
                2015       363,715       1,000,000         —                   344,756     1,708,471      
      Imran Khan
                2016       241,539       5,239,460         —                   14,658      5,495,657      
                2015       230,000       —                 145,292,145         348         145,522,493    
      Timothy Sehn(6)
                2016       400,152       1,000,000         40,000,020          8,348       41,408,520

~~~
bruceb
Looks like it is time for University of Waterloo to hit Timothy Sehn up for a
donation.

~~~
econner
Yea, is that $40,000,000 in stock for 1 year of work?

------
dvdhnt
> We had 158 million Daily Active Users on average in the quarter ended
> December 31, 2016, and we view Daily Active Users as a critical measure of
> our user engagement.

> We anticipate that our Daily Active Users growth rate will decline over time
> if the size of our active user base increases or we achieve higher market
> penetration rates. If our Daily Active Users growth rate slows, our
> financial performance will increasingly depend on our ability to elevate
> user engagement or increase our monetization of users.

> In addition, because our products typically require high bandwidth data
> capabilities, the majority of our users live in countries with high-end
> mobile device penetration and high bandwidth capacity cellular networks with
> large coverage areas. We therefore do not expect to experience rapid user
> growth or engagement in countries with low smartphone penetration even if
> such countries have well-established and high bandwidth capacity cellular
> networks. We may also not experience rapid user growth or engagement in
> countries where, even though smartphone penetration is high, due to the lack
> of sufficient cellular based data networks, consumers rely heavily on Wi-Fi
> and may not access our products regularly.

> Snapchat is free and easy to join, the barrier to entry for new entrants is
> low, and the switching costs to another platform are also low. Moreover, the
> majority of our users are 18-34 years old.

> This demographic may be less brand loyal and more likely to follow trends
> than other demographics.

> For example, users 25 and older visited Snapchat approximately 12 times and
> spent approximately 20 minutes on Snapchat every day on average in the
> quarter ended December 31, 2016, while users younger than 25 visited
> Snapchat over 20 times and spent over 30 minutes on Snapchat every day on
> average during the same period.

> Our Daily Active Users may not continue to grow. For example, although Daily
> Active Users grew by 7% from 143 million Daily Active Users for the quarter
> ended June 30, 2016 to 153 million Daily Active Users for the quarter ended
> September 30, 2016, the growth in Daily Active Users was relatively flat in
> the latter part of the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

~~~
rcymerys
Wasn't twitter also measuring success in number of users and growth,
marginalizing their losses?

For now it seems like they're still only a picture-sharing app that's popular
right now. Obviously they're doing a lot to secure this position, but I wonder
if they'll be able to maintain user's engagement for a longer period of time.

~~~
dvdhnt
You are correct. I think they also shifted from daily active users to monthly
active users to mask a decline in daily usage.

------
melvinmt
Very interesting to see what they think of their competition:

> We face significant competition in almost every aspect of our business both
> domestically and internationally. This includes larger, more established
> companies such as Apple, Facebook (including Instagram and WhatsApp), Google
> (including YouTube), Twitter, Kakao, LINE, Naver (including Snow), and
> Tencent, which provide their users with a variety of products, services,
> content, and online advertising offerings, and smaller companies that offer
> products and services that may compete with specific Snapchat features.

> For example, Instagram, a subsidiary of Facebook, recently introduced a
> “stories” feature that largely mimics our Stories feature and may be
> directly competitive. We may also lose users to small companies that offer
> products and services that compete with specific Snapchat features because
> of the low cost for our users to switch to a different product or service.

> Many of our current and potential competitors have significantly greater
> resources and broader global recognition and occupy better competitive
> positions in certain markets than we do. These factors may allow our
> competitors to respond to new or emerging technologies and changes in market
> requirements better than we can.

> Our competitors may also develop products, features, or services that are
> similar to ours or that achieve greater market acceptance. These products,
> features, and services may undertake more far-reaching and successful
> product development efforts or marketing campaigns, or may adopt more
> aggressive pricing policies.

~~~
clock_tower
At least they're honest! Maybe it's the sector I'm in, but I rarely see this
kind of candor in my sub-field of technology...

~~~
Game_Ender
I feel like S1 filings are always brutally honest like this. I believe it's a
legal thing, they are afraid of future suits.

~~~
clock_tower
I hadn't known this! I definitely need to start reading S-1 filings for
companies I'm interested in; I'm still an amateur at a lot of this...

------
d4l3k
> Although other U.S.-based companies have publicly traded classes of non-
> voting stock, to our knowledge, no other company has completed an initial
> public offering of non-voting stock on a U.S. stock exchange. We cannot
> predict whether this structure and the concentrated control it affords Mr.
> Spiegel and Mr. Murphy will result in a lower trading price or greater
> fluctuations in the trading price of our Class A common stock as compared to
> the trading price if the Class A common stock had voting rights. Nor can we
> predict whether this structure will result in adverse publicity or other
> adverse consequences.

~~~
abalone
How does this differ from what Facebook and Google did? Did they offer stock
that technically had voting power but in practice was massively outweighed by
the founders' voting power? Whereas Snapchat is dispensing with such
technicalities and just outright stating the founders control it?

~~~
d4l3k
When Facebook IPOed it had two classes of voting stock. Normal and super
voting. They only offered the normal voting stock.

Facebook and Google both later offered non-voting stock, but not when they
IPOed. Not sure if it really makes a difference overall, but unlike Facebook
and Google there is no public Snap Inc. voting stock.

~~~
minimax
There is no non-voting FB stock yet. It's still tied up in a shareholder
lawsuit.

------
fastball
My takeaway was that Snap has 1,859 employees... huh?

Why does a company with a single product, which is a mobile app (so what is
that these days, three platforms?) need almost two thousand employees - am I
missing something? No wonder they lost $514mil in 2016, that's an absurd
amount of overhead for a company with a single, not very cumbersome product.

~~~
ohstopitu
What I'd like to see - is the employee breakdown.

How many are working on the acutal product/engineering?

I work for a startup (that was bootstrapped I believe) and our sales team is
almost half the company (we are just under 100 people right now).

Point being, at Snap's scale - I have a feeling they'll have a lot of Business
Development Reps trying to bring in contracts for adverts.

~~~
hxnjxn
Yeah, thats what Im interested in too. have to assume there is a significant
sales force, especially with their expected sales growth

~~~
renesd
Since both of you assume that, we'll assume it's true for the moment. In that
case, in order to scale their sales, they have to do it by an industry
benchmark unless proven otherwise. The industry benchmark is about linear
scaling of a sales force.

Actually, a more accurate calculation is much more complex. It's also almost
impossible to figure out accurately unless they release certain data - which I
guess they won't do.

Good luck with that!

------
urs2102
> We have incurred operating losses in the past, expect to incur operating
> losses in the future, and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

Also having only 158 million daily active users up from 150 million in June is
definitely interesting and a lot smaller growth jump than I had expected.

Revenue up from $58MM in 2015 to $405MM despite a loss of $515MM last year.
Wishing them best of luck, but I wonder how much their competition is hurting
their growth (Instagram stories for example)?

Also: > We are not aware of any other company that has completed an initial
public offering of non-voting stock on a U.S. stock exchange. We therefore
cannot predict the impact our capital structure and the concentrated control
by our founders may have on our stock price or our business.

Hmmm... will be interesting...

~~~
charlesdm
158M DAU is not bad, but I would guess they are to some extent limited by the
amount of iOS and Android devices in circulation? How are they going to get
that number to 300M, or 500M? My best guess is they won't, ever.

~~~
harryh
Facebook has over a billion mobile DAUs.

There are a lot of reasons that Snapchat might not grow. Lack of people with
smartphones isn't one of them. I don't think you have a good understanding of
just how ubiquitous iOS and Android devices are.

~~~
stuckagain
I once bought a $5 candy bar style feature phone with what appeared to be a
128x128 pixel LCD display, and it came out of the box with Facebook. Facebook
is not limited by the number of ultra-high-end smartphones in circulation.

------
brentm
Much greater losses than Twitter's S1. Snap's revenue is 27% higher but 548%
greater net losses.

Twitter s1:
[https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312513...](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312513390321/d564001ds1.htm)

~~~
slezakattack
I'm wondering where the loss is coming from. I'm skeptical that it's all
coming out of the cost of infrastructure and workforce. I know they've had
some company acquisitions in the past, so I wonder how that is coming into
play.

~~~
fastball
Well, they do have 1859 employees. If you say on average they're paid $50k
each (totally made up estimate, would love for someone to give me a better
one), that would be almost $100mil a year in base salary alone.

~~~
ladon86
I would 2.5x that estimate and with benefits etc, round it up to total cost
$200k per employee.

~~~
calvinlh
Keep in mind it's highly unlikely that all of those employees are engineers,
probably lots of sales/marketing/customer service people. Still, with benefits
and stuff I'd estimate maybe 100k per on the low end.

------
skewart
I'm surprised by the number of comments about how much money they've been
losing. Their finances right now are completely irrelevant to their eventual
success or failure. All that matters is getting a huge number of highly
engaged users.

The attention of many hundreds of millions or billions of people is a very
valuable resources that they will have no problem selling. Keep in mind that
there is a limited amount of human attention in the world, and it's a zero-sum
game to control it. As Facebook has discovered, owning a huge amount of
attention gives you a ton of leverage over advertisers who want to buy it.
Being in the long tail of smaller attention-holders gives you much less.

So Snap will either grow to compete with TV and Facebook as one of the top
attention-holders, or else they'll fizzle out into irrelevance, burning
through gobs of cash along the way.

I mean, sure, they could aim to be a nice $500 million company that builds a
product that makes people happy and makes their employees comfortably upper
middle class. But that's clearly not their ambition so there's no point in
discussing their finances as if it were.

------
vineetch
They spent $890,339 on security for Evan Spiegel in 2016? Why does he need
that much security? Who is trying to hurt him?

~~~
trendia
According to Wikipedia, he has $2b in wealth [0]. I have no idea whether
$900,000 / year is high or low for someone of that net worth.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Spiegel#Personal_life](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Spiegel#Personal_life)

~~~
yggda
Apple Spends $220K on Tim Cook

[http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/3444424458x0x921...](http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/3444424458x0x921630/0F4F1DA5-8CC6-43DC-A27E-1D1FF97F9359/Apple_2017_Proxy_Statement.pdf)

~~~
kgwgk
And Facebook spends $5mn on security for its CEO and $1m for its CFO.

[http://nypost.com/2016/04/28/facebook-has-spent-14-5m-on-
zuc...](http://nypost.com/2016/04/28/facebook-has-spent-14-5m-on-zuckerbergs-
security/)

~~~
giarc
I would say that Zuckerberg is much more recognizable than Spiegel. Likely
gets mobbed where ever he goes.

~~~
calbear81
You forget to Spiegel is engaged to Miranda Kerr, supermodel and is likely to
be super visible outside of work.

------
prawn
Grew by 3.4 employees per day last year. Can only imagine the challenges there
in onboarding, maintaining culture and direction, etc.

------
minimaxir
Interesting DAU-growth plateau around the 150M user mark mid-2016. Maybe there
is truth to the theories that Instagram is successfully slowing the drain of
users to Snapchat?

~~~
k-mcgrady
Anecdotally I have seen a lot of people AND brands/public figures stop using
Snapchat in favour of Instagram stories. Stories on each platform don't cross-
post well (Snapchat for example puts a massive white border around posts from
the camera roll) so it makes sense to commit to one.

Personally the thing that makes me use Snapchat less is the 'discover' stuff.
9/10 the stuff their promoting to me is top 10 type articles for teenage
girls. I enjoy the Economist story but apart from that the rest is garbage.
They could have a really nice media consumption platform their but they seem
to be wasting it.

~~~
dopamean
Which people and brands have you seen stop using Snapchat in favor of
Instagram? Since you said you've seen a lot I'm expecting a list of at least
10. Thanks.

------
ejcx
Am I reading this right? I'm no banker... Their losses for 2016 were ~$500m?
That's very steep, but it looks like revenue grew almost 700%. Wow.

Insane numbers. I don't think anyone on the planet knows what's going to
happen with them but I am sure interested in finding out.

~~~
charlesdm
$50 it'll tank like Twitter.

(And to the people downvoting me, please explain why you think it won't tank
like Twitter - thanks!)

~~~
spoinkaroo
So why not short the stock? You will likely have to wait until after the IPO
and may pay an arm and a leg for the privilege with limited initial float, but
it's entirely up to your discretion. Even more appealing if snapchat does well
on the first day of trading.

~~~
charlesdm
The same reason you don't use margin if it costs you 10% per year: risk vs
reward and potential upside.

~~~
spoinkaroo
If you are as confident as you sound you may want to pay the 10 % annualized
to short some shares, especially if it pops after the IPO.

I tend to get annoyed when people have extremely overconfident predictions yet
don't act on them. Just responding to your parent comment, it's hard to tell
how bullish your actually are on SNAP from a brief paragraph. I'm bullish also
but won't touch the thing unless it gets into territory similar to GPRO.

~~~
charlesdm
Not bullish at all on SNAP at current valuations. It needs to drop
significantly (i.e. more like an $7-13bn valuation, with good growth, and
preferably $700MM-1bn in revenue) before I will consider buying in.

There are plenty of stocks out there with sufficient potential upside that I
don't need to use leverage (either by borrowing at high interest on margin, or
by borrowing and shorting expensive shares). Borrowing at low interest rates I
will consider, but probably only for stable dividend shares.

I'm 90% certain that this won't be a killer IPO, if you look back 2 years
after it floats. But there are sufficient interesting companies out there for
me not to care about how it does, either way. Just putting it on my 'to watch'
list.

Edit: thoughts on GPRO and TWLO?

~~~
spoinkaroo
GPRO was egregiously expensive post-ipo but shorting the damn thing cost an
arm and a leg. I haven't followed TWLO.

------
nojvek
I use snapchat every single day. I know my friends who've moved off facebook
and Instagram use it extensively too. Its the facebook for young people. No
one I know who is under 20 uses facebook anymore. Mostly because their parents
are on facebook. Snapchatters post a lot more stuff that they won't usually
post on public social media. After 24 hours it goes poof.

I expect a dip after IPO and then a nice rise like facebook once they figure
out how to advertise to the teens.

Worth a wait and then buy once all the adults think its worthless.

~~~
dbbk
If you go to university, Facebook is inescapable. Every society, sports team,
social event is organised through there.

------
sagivo
> Snap Inc. is a camera company

interesting statement from a company that just released their first camera
(Spectacles) few months ago. i'm not sure if their users see them as a camera
company.

~~~
ktta
Maybe it has to do with how investors view hardware vs. software companies.
Social networks are much more volatile than hardware products and hardware
companies are more stable.

Of course, labelling themselves as camera company isn't going to fool HN, but
it might be viewed in a different light by investors.

~~~
fullshark
I'd rather be seen as the next big social network than the next GPRO

------
nlittlepoole
"We have incurred operating losses in the past, expect to incur operating
losses in the future, and may never achieve or maintain profitability." haha

~~~
rwc
This is boilerplate S1 language.

~~~
adtac
May I ask why? What would companies get out of doing that?

~~~
twinkletwinkle
I imagine it's a legal disclaimer. Same reason every investing prospectus in
existence says "Past performance is not a guarantee of future returns"

~~~
adtac
Are there legal implications if you use language like "we _hope_ to get to a
profitable stage within one year"?

~~~
sib
It's more that there are no upsides (saying "hope to" doesn't sound very
certain, so no one is going to increase the price they'll pay for your IPO
shares) and there are downsides if you don't become profitable within a year,
once you've said you hope / intend to. So, the bottom-line incentives are not
to say it.

------
benarent
It's great to see both founders ( Evan and Bobby ) ended out with equal
shares, both at 21.8% of Common A Stock. The history is pretty interesting,
and as always there is a possible 3rd founder.
[https://techcrunch.com/2013/07/31/spiegel-murphy-say-
alleged...](https://techcrunch.com/2013/07/31/spiegel-murphy-say-alleged-
snapchat-co-founder-never-had-equity/)

~~~
gkop
Why is it great? It seems a super low probability that both founders deserve
exactly the same compensation.

------
asdfg11235813
> For the year ended December 31, 2016, we recorded revenue of $404.5
> million... For the year ended December 31, 2016, we incurred a net loss of
> $514.6 million

> We have three classes of common stock: Class A, Class B, and Class C.
> Holders of our Class A common stock—the only class of stock being sold in
> this offering—are entitled to no vote on matters submitted to our
> stockholders

~~~
dumbfounder
Is the monthly revenue growth rate in there? I can't find it. To me that tells
the story of whether it's a buy or not (for the mid term).

------
dddrh
Small question, but is it normal to leave the numbers blank when it comes to
share-percentage or number of shares rewarded to the founders in the Risks
section[0]?

[0]:
[https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1564408/000119312517...](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1564408/000119312517029199/d270216ds1.htm#rom270216_2)

------
pixelmonkey
"We are required to purchase at least $400M of cloud services from Google each
year beginning on January 30, 2017..."

Wow, quite a snag for Google Cloud Platform to land that contract!

------
bluetwo
OK, their dirty laundry is about what I would expect it to be. They are
required to list these things at this point to avoid being accused of hiding
information later.

Given all this, are you buying? If you owned stock day 1 would you sell it?

~~~
clock_tower
Personally, I'd sell immediately. I don't trust tech stocks; they're consumer
discretionaries (or media stocks?) but more volatile, and any one of them
could suffer the fate of Sun or Iomega at any time. If you gamble and win, you
can make a fortune, but if you gamble you're more likely to lose; there are
more reliable profits to be made elsewhere.

(But I don't short any tech stocks, even though they don't normally pay
dividends; all you have to do is short the next Microsoft once, and then
you're selling your house a decade down the line. I prefer to let other people
do the gambling, in both directions, while I look for safer things. Similarly,
I have no exposure to biotech, the other gambling part of the market.)

------
leothekim
> We rely on Google Cloud for the vast majority of our computing, storage,
> bandwidth, and other services. Any disruption of or interference with our
> use of the Google Cloud operation would negatively affect our operations and
> seriously harm our business.

Over-under on how much of their cost of revenue goes to Google App Engine?

------
ch0wn
"The launch of Spectacles, which has not generated significant revenue for us,
is a good example. There is no guarantee that investing in new lines of
business, new products, and other initiatives will succeed. If we do not
successfully develop new approaches to monetization, we may not be able to
maintain or grow our revenue as anticipated or recover any associated
development costs, and our business could be seriously harmed."

I don't think anyone expected Spectacles to be a cash cow, but I still would
have expected a more positive outlook on them.

~~~
ben0x539
They're probably more of a shot at creating lock-in than a profit center.

~~~
dbbk
They certainly are, you flat out cannot use Spectacles without opening the
Snapchat app.

------
arzt
What's up with the massive negative gross margins? Will wall street glance
over those? Is there any precedent for a company going public with such upside
down financials (putting growth aside)?

------
whitepoplar
Serious question: how does Snapchat spend so much money on infrastructure? How
could the app run up a $2b Google Cloud tab? Would anyone care to break it
down?

~~~
bendavis381
My guess would be the huge compute power needed to transcode that much video.

~~~
ljk
and storage, i'm guessing

~~~
trhway
video transcoding wouldn't it be better on FPGA or some DSP? and storage -
compression? I mean are all those images that different from each other?
Different people make photos and videos of basically the same stuff.

------
atishd
If I am the May 2016 investor, I'm thrilled that I got to see how the company
grew for a year and a half, while still paying the same price as the Feb 2015
investor. Snap might have provided other incentives to investors early in the
Series F round, or they were just happy to get invited to the party.

------
dynofuz
It doesnt make sense that it would be worth more than twitter or even
instagram. Even if ads are more effective, there's 5x the interest to
advertise on those platforms than snap
([https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=snapchat%20ads,twitt...](https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=snapchat%20ads,twitter%20ads,instagram%20ads,facebook%20ads)).
I say its worth more like ~3B market cap

~~~
dangoldin
Part of this can be explained by Snapchat not having a self serve product
(AFAIK) so a lot of the search results might be individuals/smaller businesses
looking for help/advice to get started. I know the major brands are spending
fairly significantly on Snapchat and doubt they contribute much to the Google
trends data.

------
kartD
So what's the transition time from an S-1 to being able to buy shares. Does it
mean the stock will list tomorrow?

~~~
elastic_church
A month or two. I'd wager 6 weeks.

The S-1 is for the roadshow to create the underwriters and syndicate. They
want to study our reactions and other people's reactions to see how they can
price the shares.

It is all about perception at this point. Share value number should go up.

------
obilgic
Snap Inc. is a camera company.

~~~
OedipusRex
Still don't use the native camera on Android.

~~~
charlesdm
You don't understand. They're a camera company.

~~~
adtac
Like, making actual cameras? I don't use Snapchat, but would that just be a
regular camera with filters?

------
svend
> For the year ended December 31, 2016, we incurred a net loss of $514.6
> million, as compared to a net loss of $372.9 million for the year ended
> December 31, 2015. Some serious progress there. Great. Let's IPO O_o

~~~
ljk
gotta strike while the iron is hot

------
gigatexal
Net loss about 500 million at the end of 2016 which is about 100 million more
than the year prior. Yikes. Still they'll likely make the case that they can
turn a profit in the not-to-distant future.

------
return0
It s going to be tremenous success. I ve never even seen the app, let alone
used it, but its the times we live in.

------
mmastrac
I wonder if Snapchat is still using AppEngine. I'm pretty sure they were 50%+
of the AE traffic at some point.

~~~
egillie
I know googlers used to needle the AE SREs by calling them "Snapchat SREs"

------
perseusprime11
Fate will be similar to the Twitter stock

------
charlesdm
Your pension funds at work, people.

------
earlyriser
When are they going to be on Nasdaq? I'm not sure where to find this info.

~~~
selectodude
Never. They're on the NYSE.

~~~
earlyriser
Oh, I see. And when are they expected to enter the market?

~~~
selectodude
They plan for sometime in March.

------
softwarefounder
I'll never complain about writing a SOW ever again.

------
justinzollars
Snap is a company that doesn't know Oneself.

------
screed
What a shit design of this page.

~~~
GrinningFool
I know - it's fully searchable, everything easily accessible. What were they
thinking?

