3 ms·

Why the hell is their expense that high? 350 million users, sure it's a lot. Plus they have to store the messages for a long time and it's not like a text mess

Why the hell is their expense that high? 350 million users, sure it's a lot. Plus they have to store the messages for a long time and it's not like a text message but more like a group chat. Still, most of their expense can't be going towards their tech stack but headcount. Anyone that takes over the company is going to be doing massive layoffs. They should do it their self and become profitable or else someone is going to do it and run of their good folks in the process. They are about to become the new Yahoo if they don't turn themselves around quickly.

heydenberk 10y ago
> Anyone that takes over the company is going to be doing massive layoffs. Rapidly-growing tech behemoths like Google can afford to acquihire hundred of engineers and, eventually, assign them to other work.
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  Maybe. But at the same time, with over 3,000 employees and a small set of products, that's not only a lot to take on but much of which is likely redundant. With so many surely they hold a fair amount of under performers as well.
  - ryandrake 10y ago
    What other work? Is there a company out there that actually has 3,000 employees-worth of work to get done, but nobody to do it? I thought we were in general facing the opposite problem: Lots of bodies but not enough work, leading to under-employment.
    - tiglionabbit 10y ago
      It depends how fussy employers are about their employees. Employers are always saying there is a talent shortage.
  - revelation 10y ago
    You would think that, but honestly the site is broken more often than not for me. Right this very moment all pic.twitter links are just redirecting to "https//" URLs. And that's in an incognito tab.
    - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
      One of the best ways to resolve issues in a project is simplifying. You don't need so many if you are going to simplify. Though, anecdotally, I haven't had any issues with the site or service for a few years now. So I can't imagine they have many production issues that affect all the users.
    - chetanahuja 10y ago
      I haven't done a formal study but their t.co url shortener (which is forced on anyone who posts any url) is often broken or extremely slow. Twitter seems like a company where hardcore systems engineers probably take a backseat to "visionary product managers"
- brian-armstrong 10y ago
  Many of those employees will be on the ad platform. Google already has a good ad platform...
trhway 10y ago
>Why the hell is their expense that high? 350 million users, sure it's a lot. Plus they have to store the messages for a long time and it's not like a text message but more like a group chat. Still, most of their expense can't be going towards their tech stack but headcount. yep. I don't think the difference between WhatsApp and Twitter in features explain such a difference in headcount and expenses.
acdha 10y ago
Every time I've looked at their reports, stock-based compensation is significantly greater than the total net loss. It seems like the classic tech bubble company where there's a solid large company which is at risk because they're spending like a profitable huge company.
- charlesdm 10y ago
  Getting rid of half their staff probably wouldn't hurt. In fact, they might finally be able to turn a profit.

heydenberk 10y ago

> Anyone that takes over the company is going to be doing massive layoffs. Rapidly-growing tech behemoths like Google can afford to acquihire hundred of engineers and, eventually, assign them to other work.

BinaryIdiot 10y ago
Maybe. But at the same time, with over 3,000 employees and a small set of products, that's not only a lot to take on but much of which is likely redundant. With so many surely they hold a fair amount of under performers as well.
- ryandrake 10y ago
  What other work? Is there a company out there that actually has 3,000 employees-worth of work to get done, but nobody to do it? I thought we were in general facing the opposite problem: Lots of bodies but not enough work, leading to under-employment.
  - tiglionabbit 10y ago
    It depends how fussy employers are about their employees. Employers are always saying there is a talent shortage.
- revelation 10y ago
  You would think that, but honestly the site is broken more often than not for me. Right this very moment all pic.twitter links are just redirecting to "https//" URLs. And that's in an incognito tab.
  - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
    One of the best ways to resolve issues in a project is simplifying. You don't need so many if you are going to simplify. Though, anecdotally, I haven't had any issues with the site or service for a few years now. So I can't imagine they have many production issues that affect all the users.
  - chetanahuja 10y ago
    I haven't done a formal study but their t.co url shortener (which is forced on anyone who posts any url) is often broken or extremely slow. Twitter seems like a company where hardcore systems engineers probably take a backseat to "visionary product managers"
brian-armstrong 10y ago
Many of those employees will be on the ad platform. Google already has a good ad platform...

trhway 10y ago

>Why the hell is their expense that high? 350 million users, sure it's a lot. Plus they have to store the messages for a long time and it's not like a text message but more like a group chat. Still, most of their expense can't be going towards their tech stack but headcount. yep. I don't think the difference between WhatsApp and Twitter in features explain such a difference in headcount and expenses.

acdha 10y ago

Every time I've looked at their reports, stock-based compensation is significantly greater than the total net loss. It seems like the classic tech bubble company where there's a solid large company which is at risk because they're spending like a profitable huge company.

charlesdm 10y ago
Getting rid of half their staff probably wouldn't hurt. In fact, they might finally be able to turn a profit.