They were also acquired at a price which would value each employee at ~350M.
They were capable of scaling in a way that is certainly an anomaly, and not indicative of the costs of an ordinary team.
It speaks volumes about what the right talent and architecture/technology choices can do if leveraged successfully, but is more of an interesting anecdote than a realistic infrastructure budget.
> They were also acquired at a price which would value each employee at ~350M.
That’s a pointless calculation. The acquisition wasn’t for the employees. As with all network-effects products, the acquisition was for the active user base. They could have acquired WhatsApp, fired the engineering team, rewrote it with an architecture that required 100x the servers and still been happy.