2 ms·
Monetisation usually implies end users paying for a product. I don't think Twitter will ever get to that point. But a media company like Disney (who, remember,
by untog 10y ago
Monetisation usually implies end users paying for a product. I don't think Twitter will ever get to that point. But a media company like Disney (who, remember, own ESPN) could absolutely capitalise on the value of Twitter for live sports, for example. It would be valuable to them.
- mrweasel 10y agoCouldn't they do that now... for free? What's the benefit to buying Twitter? If it's due to missing functionality they could probably just pay Twitter to implement the features they're missing and it would be cheaper than buying them outright, while providing a safety net in case it fails. Right now you're suggesting that e.g. Disney is buying Twitter, for 17 billion dollars, to implement an untested business case. The cost of failure in that case is at least the purchase price of Twitter, that seems like a massive gamble.
- untog 10y agoBeing able to control the entire direction of a company is a lot more powerful than just paying them to add functionality. It also grants the ability to lock competitors out of the service once you've proved the new functionality is a success. I don't think Twitter is worth $17bn, but we live in an era of excessively hyped up and unrealistic valuations, so I have no idea what the correct price actually is. Yes, buying Twitter is a gamble, but many acquisitions are.
- jpindar 10y agoThey recently did an awesome job of streaming an NFL game.