I am not sure why people are so dissed at the cost of WhatsApp acquisition. There is a significant value to whatsapps huge network.
You know what else cost almost as much as NASA's entire budget last year - Bonus paid to GoldmanSachs' employees
Goldman Sachs has over 30,000 employees and earns over $8BB in profit a year. That's real money in the pockets of stakeholders.
But, as seems to be common on HN, I'll bet you think bankers are scum and the people at WhatsApp are doing yeoman's work, selling ads and handing data over to spying agencies.
The interesting part (for me at least), and the real reason that you guys are having a debate at all, is because our notion of value is so far abstracted from human necessities these days that its hard to put a finger on what value is.
It's the middle tier and above when things start to get fuzzy and hard to define. When most people globally were engaged in work towards the bottom, it was easy to understand the value that was being added (I grow food! I help myself and others survive!).
Now, when most people (at least in developed countries) are doing things towards the top of the pyramid or off of the pyramid entirely, its harder to define value. Money is one proxy (which you are using), but its probably a poor one. I would love to see better ones.
"There is a significant value to whatsapps huge network."
That remains to be seen. I've witnessed enough big acquisitions to know that the jury is still out on whether or not this investment will return value to Facebook.
Goldman Sachs has over 30,000 employees and earns over $8BB in profit a year. That's real money in the pockets of stakeholders.
But, as seems to be common on HN, I'll bet you think bankers are scum and the people at WhatsApp are doing yeoman's work, selling ads and handing data over to spying agencies.