really? they plan on making more than $12 billion "eventually"? after "going public"? a company that basically just "sells" a "free service"? do they expect millions of people to pay $100 a year to have prettier emojis?
You can always start the same thing all over again
No you cannot. Or at least you cannot and be as profitable. All your base went with the thing you just sold. If you create the exact same thing, your base is established in the thing you just sold off. So unless you bring something new to the table, your base isn't coming to your new thing. Yahoo, Apple, Microsoft, and Google have all bought out small players and those small players moved on to something completely different or just was one and done with it altogether. Yahoo bought out Astrid, Microso
They are NOT currently profitable though. Discords entire REVENUE in 2020 was only $130 million (note that is revenue not profit). They have had exponential growth but it is still very high risk as to whether they can turn the business into a profit making one without destroying the business.
It is probably a lot more than just an estimate. As buyers have been prodding at them for some time quite and the CEO has been doing interviews, a lot of people will have hard numbers of exactly what they earn and WSJ deals with a lot of those people.
No, it is literally a single WSJ claim based on a single "(anonymous) person familiar with the company" written as a part of a larger story on personnel shuffling in Discord.
Notice how in an otherwise well sourced story, no source link is provided for the relevant claim. You can find this claim repeated near verbatim across multiple similar WSJ stories written by Sarah E. Needleman that all came out around the same time, for example:
really (Score:5, Interesting)
really?
they plan on making more than $12 billion "eventually"? after "going public"? a company that basically just "sells" a "free service"?
do they expect millions of people to pay $100 a year to have prettier emojis?
I honestly don't understand this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
You can always start the same thing all over again
No you cannot. Or at least you cannot and be as profitable. All your base went with the thing you just sold. If you create the exact same thing, your base is established in the thing you just sold off. So unless you bring something new to the table, your base isn't coming to your new thing. Yahoo, Apple, Microsoft, and Google have all bought out small players and those small players moved on to something completely different or just was one and done with it altogether. Yahoo bought out Astrid, Microso
Re: (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That is WSJ estimate. There is no reliable public data on how well Discord is doing, as company is private and doesn't publish financials.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is literally a single WSJ claim based on a single "(anonymous) person familiar with the company" written as a part of a larger story on personnel shuffling in Discord.
Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/c... [wsj.com]
Notice how in an otherwise well sourced story, no source link is provided for the relevant claim. You can find this claim repeated near verbatim across multiple similar WSJ stories written by Sarah E. Needleman that all came out around the same time, for example:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a... [wsj.com]
T
no source link is provided for the relevant claim (Score:0)
no source link is provided for the relevant claim.
Who [slashdot.org] would do [slashdot.org] such a thing [slashdot.org]?
Re: (Score:1)
When China troll has problems comprehending the difference between "post on social media" and "Wall Street Journal story".
Re: (Score:0)
Re: no source link is provided for the relevant cl (Score:2)
Quality of you China trolls has really declined lately. Step it up, you're so dull, it's much less fun to poke you on your stupidity.