Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter may receive formal bid, suitors said to include Salesforce and Google

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 361 posts

Re: Twitter may receive formal bid, suitors said to include Salesforce and Google

#191

Post by [deleted] »

briholt wrote: post #129
imagist wrote: post #85

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…

Agreed on poor finances. But Twitter has one thing that no one else has - they are in the center of the zeitgeist. Every political candidate is on Twitter. Every news network discusses Twitter happenings everyday. NFL broadcasts list players' Twitter handles. Half the commercials on TV advertise hashtags. South Park just did a whole episode about Twitter. The cost to embed your brand in the minds of Americans like th…

[deleted]

Re: Twitter may receive formal bid, suitors said to include Salesforce and Google

#192

Post by scdc »

pc86 wrote: post #136
dominotw wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

Why would anyone pay $10B for non-monetary value?

Because they think they can turn non-monetary value into $.

Re: Twitter may receive formal bid, suitors said to include Salesforce and Google

#194

Post by nenadg »

daveid wrote: post #38
mikeycgto wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such as?

GNU social [1], Mastodon* [2] There is a set of standartized web protocols called Webfinger, ActivityStreams, Salmon and PubSubHubbub which allow websites to interact with each other as a sort of decentralized/federated Twitter (this is called the "fediverse"). [1]: https://gnu.io/social [2]: https://github.com/Gargron/mastodon Disclaimer: I'm working on Mastodon, it's a new open source implementation, I'm trying to…

Nice thing this mastodon.social, how do I reach out to people/interests ?

Re: Twitter may receive formal bid, suitors said to include Salesforce and Google

#195

Post by gdulli »

andybak wrote: post #65
gdulli wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google wasn't given that reputation randomly or casually. They earned it through their actions and they deserve the consequences. People who don't know the pattern deserve to be educated about it. I weaned myself from Twitter when they added the algorithmic timeline but if I hadn't, I'd begin doing it now and I would be better off for starting it now at my own pace than later, forced to abruptly.

The point is everyone knows the pattern and it's not adding anything further to the conversation to keep repeating it. It's no better than parroting "Embrace Extend Extinguish" every single time Microsoft are mentioned.

Everyone knows because it gets pointed out and discussed, like this. It's myopic to assume that everyone is as old as you are and has been paying attention for as long as you have. There are people who are younger or newer to the Google ecosystem for whom it's not common knowledge.

Re: Twitter may receive formal bid, suitors said to include Salesforce and Google

#196

Post by jonny_eh »

orblivion wrote: post #137
briholt wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed on poor finances. But Twitter has one thing that no one else has - they are in the center of the zeitgeist. Every political candidate is on Twitter. Every news network discusses Twitter happenings everyday. NFL broadcasts list players' Twitter handles. Half the commercials on TV advertise hashtags. South Park just did a whole episode about Twitter. The cost to embed your brand in the minds of Americans like th…

Oddball idea: If all these news outlets, and other organizations, benefit from it, maybe they could finance it. The same way the Linux Foundation is sponsored by large tech companies.

I can't imagine politicians funding Twitter.

Re: Twitter may receive formal bid, suitors said to include Salesforce and Google

#197

Post by tragic »

tn13 wrote: post #172
imagist wrote: post #85

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…

> 350 million active users, that's about $29 per user 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…

> Obama, Trump, Hillary, Beiber, JK Rowling, Pope, United Airlines, Marc Anderseen, Borrat, Bozo the Clown

With the likely exception of Andreesen, all you're getting are particularly fragmented and discombobulated press releases from 'their people' (in house or consultant PRs).

I could live without them.

Re: Twitter may receive formal bid, suitors said to include Salesforce and Google

#198

Post by imagist »

scosman wrote: post #149
imagist wrote: post #85

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…

Be careful conflating "never made a profit" with not having a business. They made $710M in revenue last quarter, up 48% yoy. Their expenses might be high, but they can address that. Companies like Amazon didn't make a profit for years, and are rightfully quite valuable in the eyes of the market. A $29 valuation per MAU is low if anything. Facebook is almost 10x that (and deserves to be). Early stage startups often ge…

> Be careful conflating "never made a profit" with not having a business.

At 10 years in, this isn't a conflation--these are just equivalent.

> Early stage startups often get 50x that or higher.

...and this makes sense for some early-stage startups. But Twitter isn't an early-stage startup.

Re: Twitter may receive formal bid, suitors said to include Salesforce and Google

#199

Post by segmondy »

scosman wrote: post #149
imagist wrote: post #85

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…

Be careful conflating "never made a profit" with not having a business. They made $710M in revenue last quarter, up 48% yoy. Their expenses might be high, but they can address that. Companies like Amazon didn't make a profit for years, and are rightfully quite valuable in the eyes of the market. A $29 valuation per MAU is low if anything. Facebook is almost 10x that (and deserves to be). Early stage startups often ge…

Why the hell is their expense that high? 350 million users, sure it's a lot. Plus they have to store the messages for a long time and it's not like a text message but more like a group chat. Still, most of their expense can't be going towards their tech stack but headcount. Anyone that takes over the company is going to be doing massive layoffs. They should do it their self and become profitable or else someone is going to do it and run of their good folks in the process. They are about to become the new Yahoo if they don't turn themselves around quickly.

Re: Twitter may receive formal bid, suitors said to include Salesforce and Google

#200

Post by abc_lisper »

mkagenius wrote: post #188
abc_lisper wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No shit! They should charge companies and news agencies, and anyone representing companies per tweet(1k per tweet or similar). They provide a valuable service - why should they give it to corporations for free?

fb doesn't do that. Twitter can follow what fb does. Right now twitter is very light weight, un-cluttered. It can change UI/UX to advertise more. Of-course there has to be value for advertisers as well - which I think is there (350M users).

Yeah. Twitter is a broadcasting platform. It is different from FB. FB feed has your mom and their friends' posts. Twitter doesn't, unless you explicitly ask for it. Not everything should be about advertising. Twitter can stay as it has, and just charge people with money, money.
Post reply on HN