SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Without Facebook, Instagram Valued at $100 Billion
Did Facebook Inc. (FB) purchase Instagram for cheap? Recent valuations say so. A new estimate reveals that if Instagram were a standalone company, it would have been worth $100 billion today, according to the data compiled by Bloomberg Intelligence.
The photo-sharing service recently hit 1 billion monthly active users, and the steadily increasing user base is expected to shoot revenue past $10 billion over the next 12 months. While parent company Facebook is reportedly losing younger audiences, its loss has been a boon to Instagram and other social media services including Snap Inc.'s (SNAP) Snapchat, owing to features that better appeal to younger people. (See also: Aging Facebook Losing Teens: Pew Research Survey.)
While Facebook continues to grow and has surpassed the 2.2 billion user milestone, Instagram is gaining new users at a rapid pace and is on course to get 2 billion users on its platform over the next five years, the study suggests. During the past year, Instagram contributed 10.6% to revenues at Facebook, per eMarketer data, while over the next year it is expected to account for around 16% of the parent company's revenue. Instagram's future growth may be accelerated by the recently launched IGTV, an iOS- and Android-supported app-based video hosting and sharing service that will compete head-on with Alphabet Inc.'s (GOOGL) YouTube service.
Also at BGR, The Mercury News, and Business Insider.
Related: Facebook/Instagram vs. Twitch and YouTube
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Appalbarry on Thursday June 28 2018, @09:48PM (5 children)
Nortel anyone? Pets.com? How can anyone believe that any web site (Amazon.com and Alibaba being the possible rare exceptions) is worth $100 Billion? In what universe can Instagram do anything that would generate enough income to make that plausible?
What is it about tech that makes investors so stupid or gullible?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @10:13PM (3 children)
Advertisers. They throw around huge sums of money, frequently 20% of their total business expenses! Now whether it translates to tangible profits is a separate question, but they seem to think so.
"Advertisers" covers every aspect of selling user data for profit. Governments would be more like reverse advertisers, give them the data so they know who to lock up. I bet FB makes a pretty penny selling user data to oppressive regimes.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday June 29 2018, @12:20AM (1 child)
How long does the concept that you can keep on pushing advertising in people's faces persist? (ignoring the fact that adblockers are a thing).
This whole thing has got to come crashing down someday.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Friday June 29 2018, @03:41AM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 29 2018, @03:43AM
"Advertisers"? Or the US Government funneling $$$ to FB and Google for their spy work?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday June 29 2018, @12:02AM
At least Pets.com had a happy ending [wikipedia.org].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]