171–180 of 361 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The people I tend to agree with are just as prone to group think as conservative-leaning people. Hate grows in the absence of disagreement, and it doesn't stop at the echo chamber's walls.
So what do you actually want from a community then ? It seems like you don't want certain people in it, but at the same time you do want them in it. I'm not sure if I'm understanding it correctly.
IMO, Twitter is the poster child for the tech bubble. They have users, which is their only claim to viability, but notably, they have never made a profit. Currently valued at around $10 billion with 350 million active users, that's about $29 per user. You'd be hard-pressed to find an investor so foolish that they would invest $29 in each of their users and hope to make it back if it were stated in those terms, but pe…
Name one other platform which has Obama, Trump, Hillary, Beiber, JK Rowling, Pope, United Airlines, Marc Anderseen, Borrat, Bozo the Clown all engaging in two way communication with their fans and haters ?
I think an investor should worry less about $29 per user metric and worry more about the incompetence of the top management which has failed to generate revenue out of this.
IMO, Twitter is the poster child for the tech bubble. They have users, which is their only claim to viability, but notably, they have never made a profit. Currently valued at around $10 billion with 350 million active users, that's about $29 per user. You'd be hard-pressed to find an investor so foolish that they would invest $29 in each of their users and hope to make it back if it were stated in those terms, but pe…
> If you find yourself thinking that Twitter is a company with any real value What about non-monetary value like playing a key role in 'Arab Spring'[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_and_the_Arab_Spri...
Personally it was Twitter that educated me about some of the horrendous laws that the Indian government passes/planning to passed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Salesforce's back end is AWS. They ran their own cloud for a while, but ditched it.
Incorrect.
Salesforce feels like a bizarre choice, although I agree with their digital chief that "I love Twitter" personally. I use twitter every day as my primary method of content discovery. So at their core the BUSINESS should revolve around monetizing my eyeballs, eg advertising. So to me it's Facebook or Google that should grab it, w/FB at the lead considering their relatively smooth / unhurried / and successful takeovers…
I'm not if there really could be a tie in, but one thought is that if a company could take an internal chatter post and promote it to public, that public post could be spread via twitter.
Google acquiring Twitter is actually the best end result here. Salesforce is probably the worst. Lots of people hate the idea of a Google acquisition, but I think it's well suited because: - Google learnt from its mistakes with Google+ and is eager to not repeat them - The company is a very different one now from years ago - Google doesn't want to mess up identity again, so that wouldn't be an issue - Google mostly j…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment actually sort of explains the question I asked. Would you still maintain this view if either a) advertisers reduce their spend on FB because of poor results and the usual problem with saturation of any advertising channel and start looking at other options, or b) more events play out in the future where Twitter's place as the "other social network that people actually care about" becomes more important/r…
In the long run, I don't think that Twitter's problem is one of competition from FB or any other competitor. They have enough users that they could turn a profit even if they could monetize those users, regardless of competition. But they haven't turned a profit, which after 10 years is a strong indicator that they can't turn a profit. If Twitter is able to time an addition of ads with a major event that damages FB's…
In those 10 years Twitter has changed leaderships multiple times. Twitter has never had stable and competent management.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only reason revenue, users, scale, investor love, patents, staff, infrastructure, etc. matter is that they usually are indicators of potential for profit. Profit is the entire point of investing in a company. But the greater indicator of potential for profit here is that Twitter has existed for 10 years and has never turned a profit. Given this, I think that revenue, users, scale, investor love, patents, staff, i…
Twitter has existed for 10 years, as you say. How many 10 year old companies have 300mm users and revenue at $2.2 billion and growing at this pace?