7 ms·

Unclear is what kind of "deal" they are talking about. A considerable buy in? A full acquisition? And, assuming a full acquisition... what would be the gain?

Unclear is what kind of "deal" they are talking about. A considerable buy in? A full acquisition? And, assuming a full acquisition... what would be the gain? Google has a bad story with attempts at social media, apart from YouTube. (Bought Orkut, killed it, tried Google Plus, went nowhere). Twitter is hard to make profitable without alienating the users with too many ads. For Google, it would probably be an acquisition like YouTube. With the knowledge that it might never be profitable, but intended to get control over a significant asset. But sharing Google infrastructure and resources could probably bring down operating costs in the medium term. We'll see.

andybak 10y ago
If it's Google then cue endless jokes about shutting it down. I'm not saying they don't have some issues with their corporate attention span but I do get sick of that one being wheeled out without any real insight or cause.
- koolba 10y ago
  > If it's Google then cue endless jokes about shutting it down. Haha. That'd be the world's funniest acquihire.
- gdulli 10y ago
  Google wasn't given that reputation randomly or casually. They earned it through their actions and they deserve the consequences. People who don't know the pattern deserve to be educated about it. I weaned myself from Twitter when they added the algorithmic timeline but if I hadn't, I'd begin doing it now and I would be better off for starting it now at my own pace than later, forced to abruptly.
  - andybak 10y ago
    The point is everyone knows the pattern and it's not adding anything further to the conversation to keep repeating it. It's no better than parroting "Embrace Extend Extinguish" every single time Microsoft are mentioned.
    - gdulli 10y ago
      Everyone knows because it gets pointed out and discussed, like this. It's myopic to assume that everyone is as old as you are and has been paying attention for as long as you have. There are people who are younger or newer to the Google ecosystem for whom it's not common knowledge.
wlesieutre 10y ago
Bought Orkut, killed it, tried Google Plus, went nowhere > Don't forget Buzz! That time when they default opted-in Gmail users into publishing a list of frequently contacted users on their google profile. Auto-follow was a terrible terrible idea.
- giarc 10y ago
  And Wave.
  - pmalynin 10y ago
    Wave was too ahead of its time. Bots in channels that could translate and issue arbitrary actions? In 2009? Nonsense.
    - wlesieutre 10y ago
      I really liked Wave. It came out when I was in college and moving into an off-campus apartment with two other guys. We used it to coordinate who was bringing what (to not end up with 50 pots and three sets of chairs), and being able to have reply threads in the middle of a previous post was a great format for that sort of small group discussion.
    - abz10 10y ago
      It was not ahead of its time, it was poorly executed. People didn't know what to make of it. That is the designers fault. They needed to relate it to existing ideas and beat those ideas at their own game, even if that mean restricting what it can do to familiar domains. Then over time they can evolve it while taking the users along with them. Instead people bounced off it and decided to wait it out to see if they really needed it and it turns out they didn't. Spereately, I think it's hilarious that many websites pester hard for emails, making them effectively pamphlets for their email content. If only there was a way that I could subscribe (and unsubscribe) to a stream of short notifications from content creators and be confident that I see all of them in a timeline order. Like what Twitter used to be before they screwed with the timeline. They're going to lose to email, and not for being ahead of their time.
joobus 10y ago
How is a company which "might never be profitable" considered a "significant asset"?!
- brazzledazzle 10y ago
  I assume it's because another company is in a position to capitalize on it in ways Twitter alone could not.
- dpflan 10y ago
  As a social network, this is probably valuable to Google's Ad business - gives more dimensions to a Google user if you link your Twitter account with Google account...just guessing ATM.
- falcolas 10y ago
  There's a lot of signal to be had in Twitter, signal which can be (and has been) turned into revenue not directly gained from it's users or advertisers. Remember the story about Dataminr and its Government contracts?
- adventured 10y ago
  The same thing was said about YouTube because of its immense costs of operations and the fact that few/nobody had figured out how to do a good job monetizing video advertising at that point. Google being the ad monster that it is, could significantly boost Twitter's business and they could slash the operating costs very considerably. Twitter should be solidly profitable at $3-$4 billion in sales (which Google could deliver).
- the_duke 10y ago
  Money isn't everything. YouTube is a hugely popular service, driving lots of data, traffic and brand image towards Google. Could be the same for Twitter.
  - daveguy 10y ago
    I'm not sure if brand image is something YouTube gives Google. I honestly don't think the general public knows that YouTube is a part of Google. YouTube seems like its own separate thing to the casual user. It would be interesting to see a poll of the general public. But the data. The data is key. They have rocked image recognition and video is a huge data source for their ML efforts.
berns 10y ago
> Bought Orkut, killed it, tried Google Plus, went nowhere Add Jaiku.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaiku https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaiku
muse900 10y ago
Sorry I don't think youtube is profitable by itself and sustainable. Although its the biggest video platform in the world attracting 1/3 of the worlds population to it. I think the data itself that can be gathered via youtube are profitable for google and google's purpose really (AI). If they buy twitter it won't be because they can turn it into being sustainable itself but because they can make it profitable for them and not in money. Personally I don't think that google has a money issue and I think for them its easier to value data more as a currency.
- the_duke 10y ago
  I said that they probably bought it with the assumption that it might never be profitable. As far as public information goes, Youtube is most likely not.
dvdcxn 10y ago
>Twitter is hard to make profitable without alienating the users with too many ads. TBH I don't think google would buy Twitter with the expectation of making money off of it. Its value is its continued data gathering, which would inform other google products.
- bdcravens 10y ago
  This, and perhaps a deeper integration in Android.
mzw_mzw 10y ago
If Google buys Twitter and then kills it, we should mint them a freaking medal for services to humanity.

andybak 10y ago

If it's Google then cue endless jokes about shutting it down. I'm not saying they don't have some issues with their corporate attention span but I do get sick of that one being wheeled out without any real insight or cause.

koolba 10y ago
> If it's Google then cue endless jokes about shutting it down. Haha. That'd be the world's funniest acquihire.
gdulli 10y ago
Google wasn't given that reputation randomly or casually. They earned it through their actions and they deserve the consequences. People who don't know the pattern deserve to be educated about it. I weaned myself from Twitter when they added the algorithmic timeline but if I hadn't, I'd begin doing it now and I would be better off for starting it now at my own pace than later, forced to abruptly.
- andybak 10y ago
  The point is everyone knows the pattern and it's not adding anything further to the conversation to keep repeating it. It's no better than parroting "Embrace Extend Extinguish" every single time Microsoft are mentioned.
  - gdulli 10y ago
    Everyone knows because it gets pointed out and discussed, like this. It's myopic to assume that everyone is as old as you are and has been paying attention for as long as you have. There are people who are younger or newer to the Google ecosystem for whom it's not common knowledge.

wlesieutre 10y ago

Bought Orkut, killed it, tried Google Plus, went nowhere > Don't forget Buzz! That time when they default opted-in Gmail users into publishing a list of frequently contacted users on their google profile. Auto-follow was a terrible terrible idea.

giarc 10y ago
And Wave.
- pmalynin 10y ago
  Wave was too ahead of its time. Bots in channels that could translate and issue arbitrary actions? In 2009? Nonsense.
  - wlesieutre 10y ago
    I really liked Wave. It came out when I was in college and moving into an off-campus apartment with two other guys. We used it to coordinate who was bringing what (to not end up with 50 pots and three sets of chairs), and being able to have reply threads in the middle of a previous post was a great format for that sort of small group discussion.
  - abz10 10y ago
    It was not ahead of its time, it was poorly executed. People didn't know what to make of it. That is the designers fault. They needed to relate it to existing ideas and beat those ideas at their own game, even if that mean restricting what it can do to familiar domains. Then over time they can evolve it while taking the users along with them. Instead people bounced off it and decided to wait it out to see if they really needed it and it turns out they didn't. Spereately, I think it's hilarious that many websites pester hard for emails, making them effectively pamphlets for their email content. If only there was a way that I could subscribe (and unsubscribe) to a stream of short notifications from content creators and be confident that I see all of them in a timeline order. Like what Twitter used to be before they screwed with the timeline. They're going to lose to email, and not for being ahead of their time.

joobus 10y ago

How is a company which "might never be profitable" considered a "significant asset"?!

brazzledazzle 10y ago
I assume it's because another company is in a position to capitalize on it in ways Twitter alone could not.
dpflan 10y ago
As a social network, this is probably valuable to Google's Ad business - gives more dimensions to a Google user if you link your Twitter account with Google account...just guessing ATM.
falcolas 10y ago
There's a lot of signal to be had in Twitter, signal which can be (and has been) turned into revenue not directly gained from it's users or advertisers. Remember the story about Dataminr and its Government contracts?
adventured 10y ago
The same thing was said about YouTube because of its immense costs of operations and the fact that few/nobody had figured out how to do a good job monetizing video advertising at that point. Google being the ad monster that it is, could significantly boost Twitter's business and they could slash the operating costs very considerably. Twitter should be solidly profitable at $3-$4 billion in sales (which Google could deliver).
the_duke 10y ago
Money isn't everything. YouTube is a hugely popular service, driving lots of data, traffic and brand image towards Google. Could be the same for Twitter.
- daveguy 10y ago
  I'm not sure if brand image is something YouTube gives Google. I honestly don't think the general public knows that YouTube is a part of Google. YouTube seems like its own separate thing to the casual user. It would be interesting to see a poll of the general public. But the data. The data is key. They have rocked image recognition and video is a huge data source for their ML efforts.

berns 10y ago

> Bought Orkut, killed it, tried Google Plus, went nowhere Add Jaiku.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaiku https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaiku

muse900 10y ago

Sorry I don't think youtube is profitable by itself and sustainable. Although its the biggest video platform in the world attracting 1/3 of the worlds population to it. I think the data itself that can be gathered via youtube are profitable for google and google's purpose really (AI). If they buy twitter it won't be because they can turn it into being sustainable itself but because they can make it profitable for them and not in money. Personally I don't think that google has a money issue and I think for them its easier to value data more as a currency.

the_duke 10y ago
I said that they probably bought it with the assumption that it might never be profitable. As far as public information goes, Youtube is most likely not.

dvdcxn 10y ago

>Twitter is hard to make profitable without alienating the users with too many ads. TBH I don't think google would buy Twitter with the expectation of making money off of it. Its value is its continued data gathering, which would inform other google products.

bdcravens 10y ago
This, and perhaps a deeper integration in Android.

mzw_mzw 10y ago

If Google buys Twitter and then kills it, we should mint them a freaking medal for services to humanity.