Sawickipedia Tumblr

Apr 18

“

So how much client budget is actually being dedicated to mobile?

The budgets are so small that they’re barely worth reporting on. Mobile is still a far, far larger portion of mindshare than it is budget. Sometimes mobile is baked into a multichannel program, so it’s harder to break out, but it’s still hugely under-invested. It’s well into the single digits, even just within digital budgets. On the media side, I’d say it’s less than 1 percent.

“Point being: Not all Kickstarter projects will succeed. It’s inevitable that some will fail. This is one reason why Kickstarter is very particular about using the term “backer” and avoiding the term “investor.” Dent explains, “It is not actually an investment in the legal sense of the word. The contributor is actually buying something to be part of the game.” Backers get tangible rewards in exchange for their dollars: shirts, videos, forum access, and (typically) a copy of the game if and when it is completed. It’s a purchase, not an investment. Of those projects that do manage to ship, some will be good games and some will be awful, with most winding up somewhere in the middle. This is the reality of game development in the real world, and projects funded by Kickstarter are no different. The unfortunate truth is that many backers of game projects are buying the ability to wait 18 months to play a mediocre game.” — The PA Report - The ugly side of Kickstarter: the risks in backing game dev campaigns are greater than you think

Apr 13

“

way too many assumptions here.

ultimately it is impossible to evaluate this deal until we know the breakdown of cash vs stock for this deal, as well as when the shares vest and what the final price of those shares will be when they vest.

some comparisons are useful, though. amazon paid 775 million (all cash) for kiva systems, a real company that has real assets, revenues, customers, and non-simple technology. fb pays 1bn for 12 employees and 35 million users, the majority of whom were already facebook users.

back in 2006 google spent 1.6 billion, all stock purchase, for youtube. youtube had billions of views per month — literally, billions of views per month — and 67 employees.

not to be overlooked are the VCs turned daytraders who invested in an instagram round a week before flipping to facebook to drive valuation up. short-term flipping is a textbook symptom of a bubble. not hating on short-term traders, they’re just playing the game as it has been distorted and i consider it prudent for them to do so, but this type of price action signals unsustainable price appreciation. daytraders in bubble 1.0, condo flippers in the housing bubble, and now VC flippers in bubble 2.0. history repeats……

kidmercury in his comment to Albert Wenger’s post on Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram. (via caterpillarcowboy)

I just can’t past the whole stock vs cash comment.  For a public (or near-public) company: STOCK = CASH.  There is NO difference.  Public companies ALWAYS pay for acquisitions with cash (mergers, true mergers, are different and swap stock).

(via sawickipedia) Rafer sez: No way. I’d much rather have a buck of fb stock today than a buck in cash. That IPO will be nuts. (via rafer)

There’s also different tax implications depending on cash vs. stock.  

(via jryu)

@rafer - facebook paid in stock, but it’s stock is essentially liquid thus a cash equivalent independent of whether you view facebook stock as potentially undervalued.  The original post was making a fallacious statement on how a cash buyout was some holier-than-thou better statement about the acquirer b/c they could afford cash.

@Jryu - Yes there are different tax consequences for a merger (stock swap) vs acquisition, but my point is from a financial perspective liquid stock is cash. Whether the acquired company wants cash or stock due to tax or the acquirer wants to pay with stock or cash for say liability reasons, it is not a value judgement but a financial/business consideration.

(via jryu)

Apr 12

“

Marijuana probably provides less than 25 percent of the cartels’ revenues. Legalizing it would take perhaps $10 billion from some bad and violent people, but the cartels would still make much more money from cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines than they would lose from marijuana legalization.

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have legalized “medical marijuana,” a messy, mendacious semi-legalization that breeds cynicism regarding law. In 1990, 24 percent of Americans supported full legalization. Today, 50 percent do. In 2010, in California, where one-eighth of Americans live, 46 percent of voters supported legalization, and some opponents were marijuana growers who like the profits they make from prohibition of their product.

Would the public health problems resulting from legalization be a price worth paying for injuring the cartels and reducing the costs of enforcement? We probably are going to find out.

“

way too many assumptions here.

ultimately it is impossible to evaluate this deal until we know the breakdown of cash vs stock for this deal, as well as when the shares vest and what the final price of those shares will be when they vest.

some comparisons are useful, though. amazon paid 775 million (all cash) for kiva systems, a real company that has real assets, revenues, customers, and non-simple technology. fb pays 1bn for 12 employees and 35 million users, the majority of whom were already facebook users.

back in 2006 google spent 1.6 billion, all stock purchase, for youtube. youtube had billions of views per month — literally, billions of views per month — and 67 employees.

not to be overlooked are the VCs turned daytraders who invested in an instagram round a week before flipping to facebook to drive valuation up. short-term flipping is a textbook symptom of a bubble. not hating on short-term traders, they’re just playing the game as it has been distorted and i consider it prudent for them to do so, but this type of price action signals unsustainable price appreciation. daytraders in bubble 1.0, condo flippers in the housing bubble, and now VC flippers in bubble 2.0. history repeats……

kidmercury in his comment to Albert Wenger’s post on Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram. (via caterpillarcowboy)

I just can’t past the whole stock vs cash comment.  For a public (or near-public) company: STOCK = CASH.  There is NO difference.  Public companies ALWAYS pay for acquisitions with cash (mergers, true mergers, are different and swap stock).

“The Hacker Way may just not be compatible with the Quarterly Way.” —

Instagram and why Facebook should stay private | Frederic Destin

As a VC, you want Facebook to go public because it increases the relative competitive advantage for new startups if Facebook has to start answering to the Street.  

Private companies (startups) will always have this advantage against public companies.

(via jryu)

Facebook’s voting and management structure won’t make it have to answer to Wall St.  Facebook is effectively solely operated and controlled by one Mark Zuckerberg.  Until that changes it likely won’t matter whether Facebook is public or not.

(via caterpillarcowboy)

Apr 09

“Did my position on this issue evolve over the last 12 months? I am not ashamed to admit that it certainly did. The more I became educated on the realities of these issues, the more I came to the realization that a mandated technical solution just isn’t mutually compatible with the health of the Internet.” — Former MPAA tech policy chief Paul Brigner speaking to CNET about SOPA. (via bijan)

(via fred-wilson)

Apr 06

“Fifty years ago Bobby Fischer published a famous article, “A Bust to the King’s Gambit”, in which he claimed to have refuted this formerly popular opening. Now chess programmer IM Vasik Rajlich has actually done it, with technical means. 3000 processor cores, running for over four months, exhaustively analysed all lines that follow after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 and came to some extraordinary conclusions.” —

ChessBase.com - Chess News - Rajlich: Busting the King’s Gambit, this time for sure

I just love the problem solving logic inherent in this - fascinating stuff.

Apr 03

50 Seattle Startups Learn from Experience | Computer Training Schools

Mar 28

cdixon:

tastefullyoffensive:

[via]

Yes, I never understood why kids don’t have to wear seat belts on buses. Please explain?

Actually classic cost/benefit analysis - the high seats are actually a pretty good safety feature and the addition of seat belts hasn’t been shown to cost effectively reduce injuries.  It was a case study in one of my public policy/econ classes back at college.