Jobs: I actually lost $250,000,000 in one year when the stock went down. [laughs]
Playboy: You can laugh about it?
Jobs: I’m not going to let it ruin my life. Isn’t it kind of funny? You know, my main reaction to this money thing is that it’s humorous, all the attention to it, because it’s hardly the most insightful or valuable thing that’s happened to me in the past ten years.
I believe that Jobs laughed because- the value of starting or investing in a business is in making meaning first; by making meaning you are looking to change the world. Starting or investing in a business on the sole purpose of making money, means that if you don't make money, you’ll quickly lose interest and on top of that you’ll be left with a meaningless company that doesn’t change the world.
Ah I see, it looks like there are different ways you can bring out the brand messaging, so long as you have the right people doing it in front. There are tones of founders out there that don't have much charisma, so I guess using Adam would work, and for those that have charisma, they can probably use themselves and have Adam and his team in the background... Whatever works for the teams involved.
If you use sandwich, it seems like your video becomes a sandwich branded video rather than your own branded product video, as Adam and his team star in every video. So, even though the videos produced are catchy, I believe, as a founder (http://www.dialmedirect.com) you need to figure out ways to brand your product, so that it's stands out from the crowd and at the same time expresses your value, vision and mission.
It was smart of them to release bad news at the same time as the apple announcement. Not many have talked about the Tinder Issue and Snapchat’s settlement, as a result.
It's interesting the news on Tinder and Snap Chat came around the same time of Apple’s new iPhones and iWatch release. In fact, it's no coincidence they must have been trying to hide behind the noise.
The valuation raises as many questions, as the Whatsapp deal did and relates to the difference between price and value. To justify a 10 billion valuation on a company that makes no revenue makes nonsense, especially when looking at the fundamentals (earnings/cash flows, growth and risk). The simplistic attempt at making sense of the price is to look at the correlation between the market's assessment of corporate values and each of the measures and you will see that: 1) Number of users is the dominant driver. The key variable in explaining differences in value across these companies is the number of users. The pricing game is not about what you or I think makes sense, but what traders care about. 2) User engagement matters: The value per user increases with user engagement. Put different, social media companies that have users who stay on their sites longer is worth more than companies where users don't spend as much time. While making comparisons across companies is difficult, since each company often has its own "measure" of engagement, there is evidence that markets care about this statistic. 3) Making money is a secondary concern (at least for the moment): Markets (and investors) are not completely off kilter. There is a correlation between how much a company generates in revenues and its value, and even one between how much money it makes (EBITDA, net income) and value. However, they are less related to value than the number of users.
Snapchat is said to have 100milion Monthly active users- Whatsapp-hit 600million monthly active users recently, but only had about 300million users at the time of the Facebook transaction.