41–50 of 372 posts
You'd think they would have figured out targeted ads by now. If I follow people who post about RF/Microwave, antennas, SDR, and ham radio, one would think I'd see ads from Keysight and Tektronix, but no, it's garbage like football and pop music. FAIL! I also don't like that I don't see all the tweets from a person. They are pruning the timeline. Good riddance to twitter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People have answered this before, and what it boils down to is: because they took VC money, and then went public. If you bootstrap a business from nothing and grow it on its own, then sustainable growth and stable profit is fine. But Twitter got VC and IPO money with a promise that it would have Facebook-like growth in return. I think the analogy I saw used was that they promised investors a Porsche and instead deliv…
Are they liable for those promises though? I am legitimately curious to know if they are contractually obligated to grow at a certain rate or be at certain valuation at this point in time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you buy a stock that is guaranteed to stay flat for the discernible future? No? Then you have your answer. (let's not forget that, thanks to inflation, 'flat' is actually losing money over time.)
If a that stock over time covers inflation and pays a dividend, absolutely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People have answered this before, and what it boils down to is: because they took VC money, and then went public. If you bootstrap a business from nothing and grow it on its own, then sustainable growth and stable profit is fine. But Twitter got VC and IPO money with a promise that it would have Facebook-like growth in return. I think the analogy I saw used was that they promised investors a Porsche and instead deliv…
Are they liable for those promises though? I am legitimately curious to know if they are contractually obligated to grow at a certain rate or be at certain valuation at this point in time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are they liable for those promises though? I am legitimately curious to know if they are contractually obligated to grow at a certain rate or be at certain valuation at this point in time.
I don't know that they're "liable" in the sense that people could win a shareholder suit- the bar for those is set pretty high and I doubt Twitter would qualify. My comment was more in response to the accusations that the market is somehow being "unfair" for "punishing" Twitter's lack of continued growth. They're only punishing Twitter for failing to meet the expectations Twitter itself set.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People have answered this before, and what it boils down to is: because they took VC money, and then went public. If you bootstrap a business from nothing and grow it on its own, then sustainable growth and stable profit is fine. But Twitter got VC and IPO money with a promise that it would have Facebook-like growth in return. I think the analogy I saw used was that they promised investors a Porsche and instead deliv…
Are they liable for those promises though? I am legitimately curious to know if they are contractually obligated to grow at a certain rate or be at certain valuation at this point in time.
(Story covers lawsuit against Twitter for misleading shareholders on user growth numbers).
[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-17/twitter-su...
You'd think they would have figured out targeted ads by now. If I follow people who post about RF/Microwave, antennas, SDR, and ham radio, one would think I'd see ads from Keysight and Tektronix, but no, it's garbage like football and pop music. FAIL! I also don't like that I don't see all the tweets from a person. They are pruning the timeline. Good riddance to twitter.
Is there a third party app which would not show promoted tweets? they are so annoying and un related
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People have answered this before, and what it boils down to is: because they took VC money, and then went public. If you bootstrap a business from nothing and grow it on its own, then sustainable growth and stable profit is fine. But Twitter got VC and IPO money with a promise that it would have Facebook-like growth in return. I think the analogy I saw used was that they promised investors a Porsche and instead deliv…
Are they liable for those promises though? I am legitimately curious to know if they are contractually obligated to grow at a certain rate or be at certain valuation at this point in time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd wager a bit more than that to maintain existing services. But they haven't given up on growth yet, disappointing news doesn't = throw in the towel. If these rumors are true, best of luck to those affected.
Even to grow, does twitter really need 3,800 employees? The site hasn't exactly seen much change in the past few years.
He picks on Twitter in one part, showing the graph of the number of employees by year, challenges their claims to the complexity of implementing Twitter, and mocks a UI problem he just had.
Twitter starts at 7 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k56wra39lwA
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People have answered this before, and what it boils down to is: because they took VC money, and then went public. If you bootstrap a business from nothing and grow it on its own, then sustainable growth and stable profit is fine. But Twitter got VC and IPO money with a promise that it would have Facebook-like growth in return. I think the analogy I saw used was that they promised investors a Porsche and instead deliv…
Are they liable for those promises though? I am legitimately curious to know if they are contractually obligated to grow at a certain rate or be at certain valuation at this point in time.
In practice, this says that all the bets on hypergrowth were wrong, and the company must adapt: The stock grants that looked competitive before don't look competitive today, so top engineers leave. Staffing plans designed to keep a system operable at 10x of Twitter's current volume stop making sense, so projects change, and people are laid off.
So this has nothing to do with liability to promises (they've already IPO'd), but with the pain of becoming a less promising company. Twitter is too important to disappear in the near term; all you have to do is look at how big they are for journalists and presidential candidates to figure that out. There is, however, an opportunity for someone to make a competing product that fits the same needs and is easier to monetize.