161–170 of 414 posts
I don't use Twitter and don't have any friends that do. Am I just uncool, or is it super niche now?
Same here. I just don't see the value in Twitter when I can easily get personalized content from Facebook's news feed and use an RSS reader for the sites that I follow.
This is bad, if not entirely unexpected, news. What is out of the ordinary is the public markets' reaction: the stock is down 3% in after-hours trading. Typically when a company announces layoffs its stock goes up. More mature companies have sometimes slashed headcount on the way to a better market situation. But when younger companies announce layoffs, the markets stop assuming they have lots of growth ahead and adj…
> the stock is down 3% in after-hours trading. Any fluctuation within 5% is perfectly normal and totally meaningless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet.
Facebook is building the most sophisticated AI Research Lab in the world. I think they'll be okay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet.
Facebook has 3 properties which have more users than Twitter (Facebook, Whatsapp, Instagram). Facebook itself has more active users than Google and has another property, Whatapp which is also close to or just over that billion user mark. And they are already reporting profits. I doubt they will go the way of Twitter.
Maybe it's finally dawning on investors that nobody wants to pay money for #sarcastic #selfpromoting #hottakes #mixingcontentandmetadata
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely agree. Twitter was never really a technology company to me considering it was essentially just a mimic of a wrapper around an email list.
Any company that operates at web scale is a technology company. Besides that look at their opensource contributions. Twitter has/had some impressive engineering talent.
On the plus side, shorting TWTR has been rewarding. Won't be doing it any more with a founder at the helm, of course.
Genuine question - why do recruiters hire new people when the company is laying off?
They don't always, but I can think of a few reasons why they would: - they're hiring for different specialties and departments than what's being cut - at least in theory, they're hiring people who would be above-average workers while laying off those below average - they still need to compensate for normal churn, which is probably exacerbated by the layoffs - they can try giving new candidates weaker compensation to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it's sad for employees being let go, but it's good news for Twitter. I don't think Twitter is going anywhere; it has a huge user base and a lot of people think of it as a branch of the internet. By cutting surgically (removing, as you put it, the "fluffiness"), Jack might very well be able to bring some fighting spirit back.
>I don't think Twitter is going anywhere; it has a huge user base and a lot of people think of it as a branch of the internet. It's not going anywhere in the next year or two. But in five years? Ten years? Twitter's main problem is that it has one product, and it's possible to get bored with that product. It's not really possible to get bored of googling things or buying things off amazon, but it's entirely possible…
The second dotcom boom is coming to an end. Have fun everyone
Not necessarily. They have 4000 employees, which probably has a number of non-revenue-generating positions that many SV companies are wont to have. Like Python API WebSockets Diversity Developer Envangelists with full travel budgets to go to 49 conferences a year. (I just made that up, but you get the idea)