Re:Cheaper bandwidth or bust: How Google saved YouTube
by InclinedPlane on Thursday April 23, 2015 @07:07PM
(#9430490)
WhatsApp is not worth $19 billion. That was a defense acquisition, not an RoI based acquisition. Facebook was protecting themselves from losing $19 billion or more of business to WhatsApp or WhatsApp in the hands of a competitor (like google).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Cheaper bandwidth or bust: How Google saved YouTube
by jeromegv on Thursday April 23, 2015 @10:55PM
(#9431171)
A company is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it, nothing less, nothing more. That's the best evaluation that exists.
Re:Cheaper bandwidth or bust: How Google saved YouTube
by JshWright on Friday April 24, 2015 @09:03AM
(#9433003)
The motivation for thart valuation is still relevant though.
Re:Cheaper bandwidth or bust: How Google saved YouTube
by cheepin on Thursday April 23, 2015 @10:53PM
(#9431166)
I think this might be a bit of a single cause fallacy just like the other poster. Only Facebook knows why they payed what they did, but it was certainly more complex than just preventing Google from buying them.
The aggregate benefit of not having WhatsApp in a competitor's hand + the benefits to their core business of owning it + the lifetime profitability of WhatsApp + some other factors I'm probably forgetting <= a value of 19B in mostly Facebook stock.
Re:Cheaper bandwidth or bust: How Google saved YouTube
by arthurfm on Friday April 24, 2015 @01:47AM
(#9431637)
> some other factors I'm probably forgetting
The verified phone numbers of 800 million people [1] and the ability to act as a gateway drug to other Facebook services [2]?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhatsApp
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhatsApp#Acquisition_by_Facebo...