New York Times, 4/9/2012, "Facebook to Buy Photo-Sharing Service Instagram for $1 Billion" By JENNA WORTHAM
這是昨天最紅的科技新聞。Facebook 用 $1 bn 買下 Instagram，這一兩年迅速竄起的照片分享服務公司，目前已經有三千萬個用戶。 他們的服務本來是以 iPhone 為主，就在上個星期也擴張到了 Android 了。
印象中我好像沒看到這 $1 bn 是怎麼付？Facebook 應該沒有那麼多現金在手上，如果是他們決定上市前出來這則新聞，應該會是用換股的方式進行。不過由於他們上市時間可能就是下個月，所以到時候會有 $5 bn - $10 bn 的現金入袋，真的要用現金給付也不是辦不到。
Instagram 在評價上比 Facebook 更難。這家公司還不滿兩歲，也還沒有開始獲利。雖然他們獲得的使用者支持度非常高，在這篇文章中甚至用 cult 來形容，不過他們還沒有確實找到獲利模式。目前圍繞在智慧型手機的應用軟體都有類似的問題，除非在賣軟體這一關賺到一些錢，否則只要是指望未來廣告收入的，現在都還沒有一個合理的獲利模式。目前的 3G/4G 頻寬雖然相較以前有大幅的改善，使用者還是很難接受自己使用的軟體會突然跳出廣告視窗吃掉自己的資料傳輸配額和電池的電力。更重要的是手機的螢幕大小雖然逐漸增加，仍然不是一個很適合展示廣告的平台，最起碼不是展示目前大家所習慣的廣告的平台。廣告業者在如何使用手機把廠商訊息傳達給消費者還有很長的路要走。
換句話說，Facebook 買下的雖然是個對他們來講很有價值的公司，但是這個價值在可見的未來無法換成現金流。由於這家公司規模不及 Facebook 的百分之一，在 Facebook IPO 的評價上影響極微。不過從 Instagram 上個星期在募集新資金的時候得到的評價是 $500 mn，一個星期之後就以兩倍價格賣給 Facebook。對這種『小公司』的評價可能的誤差之大可見一斑。
7 comments:
> 印象中我好像沒看到這 $1 bn 是怎麼付？
根據 WSJ, 應該是現金加上股票. 資料來自: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303815404577333840377381670.html
不才的感想是，有些服務很有價值，但不能單獨存在
就像Steve Jobs對dropbox創辦人說過的話:『you're a feature, not a product.』
facebook買下instagram，等同買下一個使用社群與一個穩定的portal，往後instagram支援分享的社群網站大概就只會有facebook了。
I wrote the following a couple of days ago on this blog:
>>It is a good thing that these social networking companies actually have revenues and earnings instead of just eyeballs:)<<
I spoke too early and I was wrong. Instead of eyeballs, we now value companies based on "friends." The power and value of networking effects at work.
Haven't looked at Google's 10K in a while...I wonder if YouTube has turned the corner in profitability.
I have a chance looking into FB's financial statements and they look pretty strong. Good cash position and positive working capitals. However the market valuation is way higher than the book value. Whether the "potential" worths that much is a question mark. Well, but personally I'd love to see FB buying some companies to max its potential and it's good to risk taking at this stage, not like Apple just giving away cash.
雖然App本身是免費的
instagram有提供可選購濾鏡
但不知道有沒有營利
我想Facebook看上的是社群潛力
最終還是以廣告轉為營收吧
To cc,
謝謝你的連結。
To taroa,
我想這還要看未來的營運模式。Google 並沒有把 Youtube, Google search 甚至 Google Map 限制在 Android 上面才可以使用。要看哪一種方式能夠為現在以及未來帶來較大的現金流量。
To Hattivatiit,
目前這家公司還沒有賺錢，社群網站的特色是用戶人數，所以獲利模式理論上都應該是以廣告為主。
To Ben,
Right on. There are still very high risks for these social networking firms because their business model is not tried and true, the jury is still out there. That being said, all investments have their uncertainty. The bigger the risk, the higher the expected return.
To Jennifer,
I didn't look into the numbers of FB closely because I'm still waiting for other people to do this job for me.
Service firms usually have higher market/book equity capital ratio. Goog sits at north of 3 (current market cap $211.67 bn, total equity $61.712 bn on 3/31/2012).
The most interest thing is AAPL. No one considers it a service company, but it has an even higher than Goog M/B ratio ($580.65 bn/$90.054 bn). Since it outsources almost all its production lines, it's no surprise that it behaves nothing like a company which "produces" things.
On the other hand, some financial firms (C, MS) still have M/B ratio less than 1 since 2008. Sigh.
Post a Comment