51–60 of 252 posts
"may become profitable for the first time next quarter after ... ramping up deals to sell its data to other companies" Cool, so any indication on who is buying all my data?
"Twitter is in funding crisis now making revenue as a remedy"
"The tables have turned, Twitter now making money, what's next?"
"Twitter demonstrated first profit, VC-s are in shock"
"Twitter in decline, first profit is below expected after 11 years"
"A profitable Twitter is considered harmful"
More and more these social media platforms feel like scheme's. Round after round of funding without ever reaching profitablity
There's always the option to simply not invest. For those platforms still in a pre-IPO state, you probably can't invest, even if you want to. For Twitter, it's easy enough to not buy the stock, and, indeed, if you bought in Jan 2014, you probably wish you hadn't. But if you bought yesterday, you're probably happy enough right now.
Disclosure: I am an engineer at EquityZen
More and more these social media platforms feel like scheme's. Round after round of funding without ever reaching profitablity
The next big scheme is allready in the making - virtual customers: You order a shoebox appartment, create a home-maker NN that can fake basic human occupancy, register it online as a new citizen and put it on basic income, and set it up to order stuff from company A. Now those NN trade among one another, sending the stuff in a circle until its scrap or they are broke and its impounded. Finally, the limiting part for…
"may become profitable for the first time next quarter after ... ramping up deals to sell its data to other companies" Cool, so any indication on who is buying all my data?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Monthly actives is generally the primary metric and it's not so easy to calculate.
Do you mean it’s not easy to define ? It shouldn’t be difficult to calculate any particular metric going forward, but it’s inportant to define what it means to be “active.”
They would be profitable in an instant if they'd get rid of half their employees? Im not sure why they need SO many people for Twitter. I believe they have over 4000, they could easily get by with 1000
>San Francisco-based Twitter also disclosed that it had discovered an error in how it had measured its user base since 2014 and revised its estimates downward How is this possible? They can't just do like fetch_all_users, filtered by "not banned?"
Monthly actives is generally the primary metric and it's not so easy to calculate.
"These third-party applications used Digits, a software development kit of our now-divested Fabric platform, that allowed third-party applications to send authentication messages via SMS through our systems, which did not relate to activity on the Twitter platform," the company explained in its earnings report.
Really seems like something they should have caught earlier.
They would be profitable in an instant if they'd get rid of half their employees? Im not sure why they need SO many people for Twitter. I believe they have over 4000, they could easily get by with 1000
Oh boy, another Hacker News commenter with zero experience running a large corporation telling experienced folks how they should run a large corporation. Better yet, with no explanation for why. The sheer arrogance.
It's not mentioned in the article, but I really think President Trump has been a savior for Twitter. Without those controversial tweets, Twitter would rarely be in much of the public's mind, and the company would have continued its slow slide into irrelevance. As it is, barely a day goes by without "Twitter" being mentioned in national news.
Also, we know that twitter maintains "celebrity handlers" --- who is on the Trump handler team?