Feeds

Square gets $1bn valuation with $100m investment

So hip it has trouble seeing over its pelvis

Security for virtualized datacentres

Square has raised another $100m, giving the payment processor a valuation of $1bn and a new board member in the shape of Mary Meeker, a partner at investor KPCB.

The $100m investment follows $27.5m that was dropped into the business in January, and the original $10m raised on the back of Twitter-founder Jack Dorsey's idea. Based on the investment CNET pegs the value of Square at $1bn, despite the fact that the company has nothing to offer besides ill-fitting and insecure plastic boxes that can be balanced on top of an iPhone to read magnetic stripes on credit cards.

Square did create something of a perfect storm of buzz words when it was launched – iPhone/mCommerce/Twitter – and despite significant embedded competition, Square has managed to convince many people that it invented the idea of using a phone to take credit card numbers, while selling them boxes they can get free from the company's website!

And let's be clear: reading credit card numbers is all that the Square reader does, despite CNET's assertion that it "is being positioned as an alternative to the much-touted but still emerging near-field communication". Square works great in the USA, where magnetic stripes are still the cutting edge of credit card technology, but is next to useless anywhere else.

But America is where the capital is, so that's what matters, and Jack Dorsey's name is a lot more important than having a sensible business model. We know that when Square had 300,000 merchants it was processing about $1m a week in payments, so around $3.30 per merchant. That means each merchant is paying Square about 8 cents a week.

Square now claims to have 500,000 merchants signed up, so at current rates it could realise its valuation in a mere 480 years – though it will have to spend the first six months paying off the cost of the boxes (at $2 a box – our guess).

At a glance, Square would seem to have a business plan that extends hundreds of years into the future, or requires international expansion of a product that has no value outside the USA, not to mention an embedded competition that's price competitive and offers greater security: it's a good thing we're not in a tech bubble or $1bn might seem a trifle optimistic. ®

Providing a secure and efficient Helpdesk

More from The Register

next story
Facebook pays INFINITELY MORE UK corp tax than in 2012
Thanks for the £3k, Zuck. Doh! you're IN CREDIT. Guess not
Facebook, Apple: LADIES! Why not FREEZE your EGGS? It's on the company!
No biological clockwatching when you work in Silicon Valley
Happiness economics is bollocks. Oh, UK.gov just adopted it? Er ...
Opportunity doesn't knock; it costs us instead
YARR! Pirates walk the plank: DMCA magnets sink in Google results
Spaffing copyrighted stuff over the web? No search ranking for you
In the next four weeks, 100 people will decide the future of the web
While America tucks into Thanksgiving turkey, the world will be taking over the net
Microsoft EU warns: If you have ties to the US, Feds can get your data
European corps can't afford to get complacent while American Big Biz battles Uncle Sam
prev story

Whitepapers

Cloud and hybrid-cloud data protection for VMware
Learn how quick and easy it is to configure backups and perform restores for VMware environments.
A strategic approach to identity relationship management
ForgeRock commissioned Forrester to evaluate companies’ IAM practices and requirements when it comes to customer-facing scenarios versus employee-facing ones.
High Performance for All
While HPC is not new, it has traditionally been seen as a specialist area – is it now geared up to meet more mainstream requirements?
Three 1TB solid state scorchers up for grabs
Big SSDs can be expensive but think big and think free because you could be the lucky winner of one of three 1TB Samsung SSD 840 EVO drives that we’re giving away worth over £300 apiece.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.