Jack Dorsey Needs to Step Down • Hacker News Board

Re: Jack Dorsey Needs to Step Down

#111

Post by dhimes » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 2:41 AM UTC

ci5er wrote: post #106

WhompingWindows wrote: post #78

Why does Twitter need to have a huge market capitalization and return for investors? Can't it just be the "global heartbeat of the information age", as the author so humbly (/s) puts it?

I have a serious question about your question, understood under the current regime rules: How does one build and maintain a "global heartbeat of the information age" without return to the funders? Even if I was an inventor that wanted to build one of these things for no personal benefit, until it was profitable (under some business model), it could not sustain without the goodwill of grant-givers or the greed of inve…

They're public. The funders' "payout" ship has sailed. They've also been profitable this year, according to Yahoo finance.

Re: Jack Dorsey Needs to Step Down

#112

Post by ci5er » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 2:44 AM UTC

dhimes wrote: post #111

ci5er wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a serious question about your question, understood under the current regime rules: How does one build and maintain a "global heartbeat of the information age" without return to the funders? Even if I was an inventor that wanted to build one of these things for no personal benefit, until it was profitable (under some business model), it could not sustain without the goodwill of grant-givers or the greed of inve…

They're public. The funders' "payout" ship has sailed. They've also been profitable this year, according to Yahoo finance.

Yes, now. But I don't know how one would finance the build-out of a public utility like this.

Re: Jack Dorsey Needs to Step Down

#113

Post by rebuilder » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 6:07 AM UTC

buboard wrote: post #105

ganstyles wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An activist shareholder owns part of the company and has additional ability to effect change through voting shares. An activist without any shares cannot attend the shareholder meetings, etc. for example.

from the letter it doesnt seem he can do more with shares than without

He can profit if his activism brings the share price up.

Re: Jack Dorsey Needs to Step Down

#114

Post by rmsaksida » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 12:39 PM UTC

Why does Twitter need to perform as well as Facebook or Google?

Facebook is dying down and being replaced with Instagram. Instagram is littered with ads and doesn't feel irreplaceable.

Google's core product (search engine) is nearly unusable these days thanks to all the ads and the push for e-commerce related results.

Sure, they're profitable. But the products are garbage.

Twitter feels like something that's harder to replace. It feels more like an utility. The core product has changed little over the years and that's why it's good and people keep coming back to it. If someone doesn't ruin it, I wouldn't be surprised if it outlives both Facebook and Google.

I already find the ads annoying. If they add even more, plus a bunch of useless features, and try to censor the discourse on the platform to top it off, it will be the death of twitter.

Re: Jack Dorsey Needs to Step Down

#115

Post by arcticbull » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 7:50 PM UTC

patelh wrote: post #110

arcticbull wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean sure, but running around Africa for 6 months yelling about Bitcoin hardly seems relevant to Twitter's operating model.

If in 6 months he has found that next growth multiplier, people won't care where he was, but in 6 months if there is no meaningful strategy derived from the exercise, there will be cause to rethink his role and he himself will see it.

Fair but there’s no meaningful strategy now, either.

Re: Jack Dorsey Needs to Step Down

#116

Post by tehjoker » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 9:30 PM UTC

derision wrote: post #21

tehjoker wrote: post #11

[flagged]

Why do you hope he loses money?

He's rich, he has only his own interests in mind. Such people are opposed to running companies for public benefits.

Re: Jack Dorsey Needs to Step Down

#117

Post by batterystd » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 10:47 PM UTC

m0zg wrote: post #68

onion2k wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the many sewers, where hundreds of millions of people enjoy swimming. Imagine if you could clean it up. What would that be worth? That's Galloway's position.

>> "enjoy" Citation needed. Best I can tell the only thing people "enjoy" there is shitting on each other, and this seems to be the platform's raison d'être. It's kind of hard to enjoy being on the receiving end of that though.

Go see reply to t_d's tweets . People pounce on them like it's their raison de etre

Re: Jack Dorsey Needs to Step Down

#118

Post by mark_l_watson » Sun, Dec 08, 2019, 2:58 PM UTC

I question one of Twitter’s strategy’s: not having a paid plan

There are several web properties that I use and cheerfully pay about $5/month to support.

I get value from Twitter because I follow some awesome people whose tweets helps me efficiently keep up with interesting new papers, tech, github repos, etc.

It baffles me that there is not an option to pay $5/month for an ad-free premium account.

Re: Jack Dorsey Needs to Step Down

#119

Post by WhompingWindows » Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 6:12 PM UTC

ci5er wrote: post #106

WhompingWindows wrote: post #78

Why does Twitter need to have a huge market capitalization and return for investors? Can't it just be the "global heartbeat of the information age", as the author so humbly (/s) puts it?

I have a serious question about your question, understood under the current regime rules: How does one build and maintain a "global heartbeat of the information age" without return to the funders? Even if I was an inventor that wanted to build one of these things for no personal benefit, until it was profitable (under some business model), it could not sustain without the goodwill of grant-givers or the greed of inve…

I'm naive about business but I just don't understand what Twitter even needs a LOT of money for. Yes, they need some funds to run servers, update apps, and the usual internet company maintenance...but it's not like FAANG companies, which have a lot of ancillary products and services, many of which are big and expensive risks...but that's what investors signed up for, an ambitious innovative mission.

Couldn't/shouldn't Twitter's mission be to distribute 140 characters from one person to many others...what do they need huge revenue and profits for?