6 ms·

Can someone actually explain to me how the situation came to this point where it practically looks as if Twitter's fate is being decided and played out in the m

Can someone actually explain to me how the situation came to this point where it practically looks as if Twitter's fate is being decided and played out in the media via endless speculation? It is not like Twitter is a tiny company with an unknown brand, few users and no possibility of improving its profit margins. I am not aware of what they are trying to do, but at the same time it is not as if they could have exhausted all the possibilities. Remember Facebook's beacon? That failed, but FB still managed to repackage the same crap into something more lucrative didn't it? Is this just impatience from stockholders? For example, let us just say, hypothetically, something really damaging comes out about FB (e.g. the news about the fake video view metrics) and advertisers start fleeing from it. Wouldn't Twitter be the beneficiary of at least some of that exodus? Do they really have no option of an end game?

poopsintub 10y ago
Facebook was due to flop after going public also, but they have managed quarter after quarter of user growth and profits. Twitter has been public about a year less and investors (3 years) are getting antsy because it can't turn a profit, user growth has dropped to very little, people are tweeting far less, and they don't have any glimpse of monetizing what they have. The main thing is that people invest in a companies growth and betting on future profits, but there isn't any. Hence the stock price, and bringing back Dorsey to try and save the company. Facebook tanking into MySpace wouldn't impact Twitter when they can't turn a profit on the hundreds of millions of users they already have.
jldugger 10y ago
> Can someone actually explain to me how the situation came to this point where it practically looks as if ... Is this just impatience from stockholders? Money doesn't grow on trees, and Facebook has lost a half billion dollars every year. They have maybe four years left at that rate before they run out of cash on hand. The numbers are improving by about 20 percent a year, which, if projected forward, means they'll stop losing money in ... four years. I don't think it's impatience to question if your investment will go bankrupt or not. Impatience was taking the company public before it was profitable. > For example, let us just say, hypothetically, something really damaging comes out about FB (e.g. the news about the fake video view metrics) and advertisers start fleeing from it. Wouldn't Twitter be the beneficiary of at least some of that exodus? Do they really have no option of an end game? Why would you invest in Twitter if the only reason to expect a positive outcome was if Facebook horribly fucked up?
- jldugger 10y ago
  > Money doesn't grow on trees, and Facebook has lost a half billion dollars every year. Dammit, Twitter has lost half a billion annually. Sigh.
- jhall1468 10y ago
  > They have maybe four years left at that rate before they run out of cash on hand. The numbers are improving by about 20 percent a year, which, if projected forward, means they'll stop losing money in ... four years. That's not accidental, that's called burn rate.
- dmoy 10y ago
  Wait fb is losing money? Sorry I couldn't parse that correctly.
  - jldugger 10y ago
    No, I thinko-d that. Twitter is.
    - dmoy 10y ago
      Ok thanks for the clarification
dragonwriter 10y ago
> It is not like Twitter is a tiny company with an unknown brand, few users and no possibility of improving its profit margins. Investors -- especially for an established firm in a fairly mature market -- don't like "possibility of improving profit margins" (especially, when "improving" means "actually maybe delivering some profit"), they like a plausible concrete plan to do that with some indication that the firm has leadership capable of executing the plan. "Maybe Facebook will implode and Twitter will pick up some of the debris and, hey, profit!" is not such a plan.
basch 10y ago
the beneficiary would be whereever facebook users go. I doubt that would be twitter. Twitter is a replacement for the rss/followjournalist/commentsection of newspapers, and a megaphone for celebrities and athletes. People go to twitter because the journalist/athlete/celebrity they desire to follow is a twitter user.
lmm 10y ago
What baffles me is how Twitter has survived this long. They've never made money. Their service is popular with celebrities and the media which is not nothing, but most people who try it find it does nothing for them. Who's been funding them up to this point?

poopsintub 10y ago

Facebook was due to flop after going public also, but they have managed quarter after quarter of user growth and profits. Twitter has been public about a year less and investors (3 years) are getting antsy because it can't turn a profit, user growth has dropped to very little, people are tweeting far less, and they don't have any glimpse of monetizing what they have. The main thing is that people invest in a companies growth and betting on future profits, but there isn't any. Hence the stock price, and bringing back Dorsey to try and save the company. Facebook tanking into MySpace wouldn't impact Twitter when they can't turn a profit on the hundreds of millions of users they already have.

jldugger 10y ago

> Can someone actually explain to me how the situation came to this point where it practically looks as if ... Is this just impatience from stockholders? Money doesn't grow on trees, and Facebook has lost a half billion dollars every year. They have maybe four years left at that rate before they run out of cash on hand. The numbers are improving by about 20 percent a year, which, if projected forward, means they'll stop losing money in ... four years. I don't think it's impatience to question if your investment will go bankrupt or not. Impatience was taking the company public before it was profitable. > For example, let us just say, hypothetically, something really damaging comes out about FB (e.g. the news about the fake video view metrics) and advertisers start fleeing from it. Wouldn't Twitter be the beneficiary of at least some of that exodus? Do they really have no option of an end game? Why would you invest in Twitter if the only reason to expect a positive outcome was if Facebook horribly fucked up?

jldugger 10y ago
> Money doesn't grow on trees, and Facebook has lost a half billion dollars every year. Dammit, Twitter has lost half a billion annually. Sigh.
jhall1468 10y ago
> They have maybe four years left at that rate before they run out of cash on hand. The numbers are improving by about 20 percent a year, which, if projected forward, means they'll stop losing money in ... four years. That's not accidental, that's called burn rate.
dmoy 10y ago
Wait fb is losing money? Sorry I couldn't parse that correctly.
- jldugger 10y ago
  No, I thinko-d that. Twitter is.
  - dmoy 10y ago
    Ok thanks for the clarification

dragonwriter 10y ago

> It is not like Twitter is a tiny company with an unknown brand, few users and no possibility of improving its profit margins. Investors -- especially for an established firm in a fairly mature market -- don't like "possibility of improving profit margins" (especially, when "improving" means "actually maybe delivering some profit"), they like a plausible concrete plan to do that with some indication that the firm has leadership capable of executing the plan. "Maybe Facebook will implode and Twitter will pick up some of the debris and, hey, profit!" is not such a plan.

basch 10y ago

the beneficiary would be whereever facebook users go. I doubt that would be twitter. Twitter is a replacement for the rss/followjournalist/commentsection of newspapers, and a megaphone for celebrities and athletes. People go to twitter because the journalist/athlete/celebrity they desire to follow is a twitter user.

lmm 10y ago

What baffles me is how Twitter has survived this long. They've never made money. Their service is popular with celebrities and the media which is not nothing, but most people who try it find it does nothing for them. Who's been funding them up to this point?