[jlockfre]

Who needs profit?

This is the God damn age of creating value out of nothing! Snapchat is not worth $3 billion, it's been 'valued' at $3 billion but it is intrinsically worthless.

[at-fates-hands]

Another reason this kid should've taken the money and ran like hell. In another 12 months the kiddies are going to be on to the next coolest social media trend and they'll be left in the dust.

[justinsteele]

Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure people were saying the same about Facebook a few years ago. The fact that they can still easily choose who receives their "updates" makes for a longer lasting product in my opinion. The "My mom is on Facebook!" phenomenon has led to a dropoff in adolescent usage. Snapchat is a supplement/replacement for texting in my experience with younger family members.

[zrail]

Yeah, I get that part. I'm just reacting to the idea in a headline, that just because something is VC funded and "dirt cheap" to keep running makes it profitable.

[gboudrias]

Not generating revenues doesn't mean worthless. They have a lot of virtual assets (emails etc).

Of course $3 billion is completely ridiculous, but it's a little unfair to say they are worthless.

[jessaustin]

Any asset is worth what someone will pay for it. FB were willing to pay that (not sure if they would be still?), so that's what it was worth.

[snaky]

I wonder why this base of economics is so hard to get for so many people.