4 ms·

Can't companies and products simply hit a natural limit? There are inherent limitations to any given "thing" and perhaps Twitter has found its own terminal velo

by bedhead 10y ago

Can't companies and products simply hit a natural limit? There are inherent limitations to any given "thing" and perhaps Twitter has found its own terminal velocity.

rsync 10y ago
"Can't companies and products simply hit a natural limit?" I think of craigslist when I read that. It's just a useful thing that works. Nothing else. I wish there were more things like that.
- arcanus 10y ago
  > I wish there were more things like that. Perhaps not coincidentally, craigslist is not a public company.
  - a_small_island 10y ago
    Any idea on how much revenue they bring in? I tried a quick google search but couldn't find any recent numbers.
    - swehner 10y ago
      How is this? http://www.aimgroup.com/store/cirs/2015-craigslist-annual/ http://www.aimgroup.com/store/cirs/2015-craigslist-annual/
harryh 10y ago
Certainly they can. The issue is that the stockholders had previously believed that this limit was much much higher. They also, to some degree, still believe that (And maybe they are right. Maybe not. It's hard to say!). So if you are the management team at twitter and your stockholders think you could be doing better you are at constant risk of getting fired.
- jhayward 10y ago
  This mismatch between expectation and reality is why so many internet companies "die". It's not that their business model failed, necessarily, it's that management, or the board, has set expectations for growth that defy reason. The company then has to embark on an ever-more-doomed set of initiatives to try to meet growth targets, which inevitably fail. Many companies could still be thriving today (e.g., Yahoo), if not for this destructive aspect of capital in our markets.
  - harryh 10y ago
    If you push 10 companies for reason defying growth and 9 of them die but the 1 survivor grows enormously is it worth it? Maybe?
    - eloisant 10y ago
      It's probably worth it for a VC who has a diverse portfolio, but as a founder you really have to think about what you really want. Do you prefer a tiny chance of becoming the next Facebook, or a good chance of building a stable business? Do you prefer to fail 9 companies before finally founding the one that will have "reason defying growth" (or not) rather than build one solid business? I'd say it depends on your character, but it's important to know what you want rather than blindly following Paul Graham and other VC prophets.
    - jhayward 10y ago
      It may make sense at a certain maturity level of a company, e.g. VC investment in startups. I'm talking about large public companies with relatively mature business models. It's almost impossible to change a business model once it is operating at scale, but management tells capital it can happen all the time.
pfista 10y ago
Absolutely. Another sign twitter has reached their natural limit is that they are spinning the exclusion of links towards character count as a new "feature".
rwmj 10y ago
I'm guessing they believe 300 million (about 1 in 20 of the world population or about 1 in 4 of the developed world population) is not their natural limit. Facebook has 1.65bn monthly active users. Facebook is obviously a very different product but I'm sure they're looking at those numbers and wondering why they are here and not there.

by bedhead 10y ago

Can't companies and products simply hit a natural limit? There are inherent limitations to any given "thing" and perhaps Twitter has found its own terminal velocity.

rsync 10y ago

"Can't companies and products simply hit a natural limit?" I think of craigslist when I read that. It's just a useful thing that works. Nothing else. I wish there were more things like that.

arcanus 10y ago
> I wish there were more things like that. Perhaps not coincidentally, craigslist is not a public company.
- a_small_island 10y ago
  Any idea on how much revenue they bring in? I tried a quick google search but couldn't find any recent numbers.
  - swehner 10y ago
    How is this? http://www.aimgroup.com/store/cirs/2015-craigslist-annual/ http://www.aimgroup.com/store/cirs/2015-craigslist-annual/

harryh 10y ago

Certainly they can. The issue is that the stockholders had previously believed that this limit was much much higher. They also, to some degree, still believe that (And maybe they are right. Maybe not. It's hard to say!). So if you are the management team at twitter and your stockholders think you could be doing better you are at constant risk of getting fired.

jhayward 10y ago
This mismatch between expectation and reality is why so many internet companies "die". It's not that their business model failed, necessarily, it's that management, or the board, has set expectations for growth that defy reason. The company then has to embark on an ever-more-doomed set of initiatives to try to meet growth targets, which inevitably fail. Many companies could still be thriving today (e.g., Yahoo), if not for this destructive aspect of capital in our markets.
- harryh 10y ago
  If you push 10 companies for reason defying growth and 9 of them die but the 1 survivor grows enormously is it worth it? Maybe?
  - eloisant 10y ago
    It's probably worth it for a VC who has a diverse portfolio, but as a founder you really have to think about what you really want. Do you prefer a tiny chance of becoming the next Facebook, or a good chance of building a stable business? Do you prefer to fail 9 companies before finally founding the one that will have "reason defying growth" (or not) rather than build one solid business? I'd say it depends on your character, but it's important to know what you want rather than blindly following Paul Graham and other VC prophets.
  - jhayward 10y ago
    It may make sense at a certain maturity level of a company, e.g. VC investment in startups. I'm talking about large public companies with relatively mature business models. It's almost impossible to change a business model once it is operating at scale, but management tells capital it can happen all the time.

pfista 10y ago

Absolutely. Another sign twitter has reached their natural limit is that they are spinning the exclusion of links towards character count as a new "feature".

rwmj 10y ago

I'm guessing they believe 300 million (about 1 in 20 of the world population or about 1 in 4 of the developed world population) is not their natural limit. Facebook has 1.65bn monthly active users. Facebook is obviously a very different product but I'm sure they're looking at those numbers and wondering why they are here and not there.