
Facebook is not worth $33B (2010) - aminozuur
https://signalvnoise.com/posts/2585-facebook-is-not-worth-33000000000
======
skinnymuch
I haven’t fully read the article however even FB didn’t know at the time of
the potential nor were they monetizing motile. Now mobile has become the
cornerstone of the business. Facebook stock dropped by over half soon after
the IPO. Not far from $33B. Before it began its rapid acceleration with mobile
beats again and again. And now Instagram revenue being a good chunk for 4
years and changing the narrative of the entire company from the far bleaker
one it would have if they didn’t own Instagram.

Even now there’s a big question mark on the future of Whatsapp and FB
Messenger. Both have over 1.5B users but bring in negligible money. If one can
monetize each user at $2-3 and the other a bit more, FB gets $10B+ more in
revenue and more growth and diversified income over this decade.

That proves the point to me too. No one can have more than a vague idea on
what revenue and profit FBM, Whatsapp, and any potential acquisition will have
in 2025. Or if Facebook launches a cloud platform (doubtful) or a Google
Adsense alternative (since it hasn’t happened by now I doubt it but I used to
be convinced this would happen for years).

One final example is the Portal. They aren’t going to move the needle any
direction right now, but they were considered a bust before corona. Now they
are selling well and have potential for expansion. I’m even surprised at their
potential. I didn’t know they could do FBM and Whatsapp group chat. Beats out
any other static home system. I just bought a pair for my grandmother and my
self. Wouldn’t have done it until its fortunes turned around this year and I
knew more about it.

------
gpapilion
I think there was some validity at the time this article was written, but
things changed a lot in the decade that followed. It also shows why growth
based valuations are difficult.

------
scarface74
You mean DHH isn’t the all knowing oracle that the tech press who fawn over
him think he is?

~~~
gist
The more important point (in addition to your point I mean) is that DHH is not
in any particular position vs. a random smart internet person to come up with
these thoughts. But when people read what he says (similar to when people read
what any notable or internet celeb thinks (say PG as one example)) is becomes
100x more believable (to some people) important or noteworthy.

I see this now with Bill Gates opining about covid (on CNN on what appears to
be a regular basis). Now yes Bill has done work with vaccines and has a great
deal to say but the main reason CNN puts him on (as opposed to others) is that
he is Bill Gates the Billionaire and somehow they feel his take on things is
more significant. Or in reality it will get people to watch CNN so they can
sell advertising. He is not the most important or credible person in these
areas (the people with actual education and working experience who Bill talks
to are, right?) but he is presented on TV as being all knowing about solving
the problems (which he could be correct about).

~~~
scarface74
Don’t get me wrong. I admire any company that decides to be a “lifestyle
business” - a profitable private company that seems to do right by their
employees.

I listen to the ReWork podcast and he is the opposite of the HN VC Dundee
hype. I also take his side in the Hey controversy.

But, when he calls himself an expert in the roll that Big Tech plays in
society in front of Congress - my eyes roll.

