161–170 of 181 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you honestly think they make less than $1 in ad revenue per account per year where this calculation would make any sense?
Do you think bot accounts won't make ad-revenue? A MAU is a MAU, whether its a bot or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A bot on its own doesn't cost Twitter much directly, but enough bots costs Twitter users.
I mean for the botters. $1K vs <$10 to run a thousand bots for a year should have a dramatic effect on the risk/reward ratio.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somebody with some actual experience/authority on the subject: https://x.com/troyhunt/status/1714529503823953990?s=46
I think you're avoiding the crux of the issue. Elon isn't trying to solve the bot-problem per se, but is instead trying to solve Twitter's revenue problem. You are basically arguing that Twitter needs to solve the bot problem to get all of its users back. That's... not really a direct solution or simple way to raise revenue. Its not very clear if say bots were cleaned up, that anyone would come back (or advertisers w…
It's quieter and less crowded, and connections are closer. At least for now. Good for the kind of people who like hackernews.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think bot accounts won't make ad-revenue? A MAU is a MAU, whether its a bot or not.
if it's identified as a bot then it won't. This change in policy seems to be a move away from that kind of revenue generation. If you're happy with MAU from bots then why bother to identify them?
If Twitter could identify bots, then they wouldn't have this problem at all.
This whole issue exists because they can't identify bots to any degree of accuracy. So now they're cedeing the situation and simply trying to monetize it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're avoiding the crux of the issue. Elon isn't trying to solve the bot-problem per se, but is instead trying to solve Twitter's revenue problem. You are basically arguing that Twitter needs to solve the bot problem to get all of its users back. That's... not really a direct solution or simple way to raise revenue. Its not very clear if say bots were cleaned up, that anyone would come back (or advertisers w…
Elon is solving a revenue problem with $1/user/year? That will assuredly cost some real users too? Please. You have this exactly backwards.
Twitter's survival is entirely dependent on becoming profitable. Entirely. Revenue (and eventually, profits), is and should be, the primary goal.
----------
Without a doubt, this is "supposed to increase revenue".
From my perspective: you are seemingly arguing that this will increase revenue by somehow improving the Twitter experience and growing the userbase. Unless... you somehow don't think revenue is an important question at all?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Well, here is X trying to make a product you pay for. No, this is an attempt to have it both ways. To do data collection / data brokerage and ALSO charge users for the service.
For sure. There's no way they'd break even at $1/year per user, let alone turn a profit, unless they're also running ads for those users.
My guess is that they’re starting with $1/year to test the waters and see who would pay. Maybe they want users to get hooked on those extra features so they can up the price.
Tip: a good way to refer to this company is "Xitter". It concise and less awkward then most other conventions, and is easily recognizable. And if you pronounce the "X" with an "sh" you get a joke compatible with Elon Musk's humour style.
I find it ironic that Fortune charges $1 a month to read about X charging for $1 / year access?