281–290 of 361 posts
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe. But at the same time, with over 3,000 employees and a small set of products, that's not only a lot to take on but much of which is likely redundant. With so many surely they hold a fair amount of under performers as well.
What other work? Is there a company out there that actually has 3,000 employees-worth of work to get done, but nobody to do it? I thought we were in general facing the opposite problem: Lots of bodies but not enough work, leading to under-employment.
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…
I don't think that they are that overvalued. To me, better examples are companies that get very high valuations in a short time that aren't justified. Twitter has had significant sustained usage and has monetized somewhat effectively.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Anyone that takes over the company is going to be doing massive layoffs. Rapidly-growing tech behemoths like Google can afford to acquihire hundred of engineers and, eventually, assign them to other work.
Maybe. But at the same time, with over 3,000 employees and a small set of products, that's not only a lot to take on but much of which is likely redundant. With so many surely they hold a fair amount of under performers as well.
And that's in an incognito tab.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe. But at the same time, with over 3,000 employees and a small set of products, that's not only a lot to take on but much of which is likely redundant. With so many surely they hold a fair amount of under performers as well.
You would think that, but honestly the site is broken more often than not for me. Right this very moment all pic.twitter links are just redirecting to "https//" URLs. And that's in an incognito tab.
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…
That said, while that brand recognition and reach is scarce and hard to reproduce, it's not necessarily something anyone would want to pay a lot of money for. How would anyone monetize it? Twitter can't really control how many non-users see a tweet.
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…
Perhaps there's some back end tech, talent that would be useful for tackling Salesforces problems.
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…
> poster child for the tech bubble I don't think that they are that overvalued. To me, better examples are companies that get very high valuations in a short time that aren't justified. Twitter has had significant sustained usage and has monetized somewhat effectively.
Disagree. They got a massive valuation quickly, never made a profit, and have lost much of that value because of it.
"Twitter has lost $2 billion since in 2011." http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/21/technology/twitter-10th-anni...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google has 7 different products with over 1 billion users [1]. This "brand problem" you speak of, if it exists at all, doesn't seem to have slowed them down much. [1] http://www.popsci.com/google-has-7-products-with-1-billion-u...
And all of them weren't launched in last 3 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can someone actually explain to me how the situation came to this point where it practically looks as if ... Is this just impatience from stockholders? Money doesn't grow on trees, and Facebook has lost a half billion dollars every year. They have maybe four years left at that rate before they run out of cash on hand. The numbers are improving by about 20 percent a year, which, if projected forward, means they'll s…
Wait fb is losing money? Sorry I couldn't parse that correctly.