5 ms·

I wonder if this will be the impetus that makes Jack become a full time CEO of twitter. Anthony was one of those COO's who was fully capable of being the CEO,

I wonder if this will be the impetus that makes Jack become a full time CEO of twitter. Anthony was one of those COO's who was fully capable of being the CEO, and had the experience to prove it. Just like Bill Gates had John Shirley, and Steve Jobs had Tim Cook, Jack had Noto. Without such an experience and capable person to run the day to day, I've got to imagine that Jack's job at twitter just got alot harder.

kloncks 9y ago
The company Jack Dorsey is CEO that is doing well isn't Twitter. If he is thinking logically, that would be where he will focus all his resources. Twitter needs and deserves a full-time CEO or to get sold to a larger company that can do something with it.
- uptown 9y ago
  I still feel Bloomberg LP would be the ideal buyer of Twitter.
  - sebleon 9y ago
    Bloomberg could not afford Twitter - their market caps are $22Bn and $17Bn, respectively.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - adventured 9y ago
      Bloomberg is worth $50+ billion. They could afford Twitter. Michael Bloomberg is worth an estimated $52 billion per Forbes. He owns 88% of Bloomberg the company, and nearly all of his wealth is wrapped up in the company. It's an extremely profitable business with $9+ billion in revenue. It was worth ~$22 billion during the great recession, when Michael Bloomberg repurchased 20% of the company (rather brilliant timing, buying it from Merrill Lynch). That was a decade ago. https://www.forbes.com/profile/michael-bloomberg/ https://www.forbes.com/profile/michael-bloomberg/
      - RyanZAG 9y ago
        I'd guess he has more profitable and more useful things to spend his money on than Twitter.
        adventured 9y ago
        Defending that archaic terminal monopoly for one. In all seriousness, as savvy as Bloomberg has been throughout his career, I'd expect him to wait until valuations plunge again, before making any big moves. I also wouldn't expect them to bother with Twitter. He's a signer to the giving pledge. At nearly 76, he's no doubt facing a serious decision about what to do with his company. I'd expect either a public listing, or a sale to a large financial firm (JP Morgan etc).
        mcintyre1994 9y ago
        Surely regulators wouldn't let Bloomberg be bought by a large financial firm whose competitors all rely on the data?
        whatok 9y ago
        I wouldn't even worry about regulators in that case. What financial institution is going to rely on a product that your competitor has control over?
- dbbk 9y ago
  Or he might take the Marissa Mayer approach and say hey, the other one is a harder challenge, and thus more interesting.
mathattack 9y ago
Jack had an all-star team around him. If he has to choose, why not go with the winner? I’m surprised this story isn’t bigger news.
- jonknee 9y ago
  > I’m surprised this story isn’t bigger news. It was on Wall Street, the stock has taken a beating since rumors of this leaked out.
bastawhiz 9y ago
Why would Jack choose Twitter over Square? Square, at least from my perspective, seems to be doing fairly well. Twitter, on the other hand, does not.
- askafriend 9y ago
  Because he's responsible for both companies, and he should spend a majority of time on whichever company needs more of his time (which as you suggested, might be Twitter).
  - statusgraph 9y ago
    No, for the same reason you don't spend most of your time on your weakest employees or most of your money on your poorest investments. Feed your winners.
    - yeukhon 9y ago
      Tough question. You have two choices when it comes to the weakest employee. Either you reach out and spend time to UNDERSTAND how to help this employee, or you can just ask the employee to leave. A good manager would do the first unless there is absolutely no sign of any improvements. What is the definition of winners anyway? The one that gets the most code done and go home at 3PM? Or the one who is capable of delivering good work AND willing to help others to succeed? For some, bring a down company back on its feet is the most challenging and rewarding project. Dorsey has to choose. Perhaps he just isn't the right person to lead Twitter. Or maybe he has to give up one child over the other. This isn't the simple "let me sell the bad assets" question. Twitter is still living, and is making money, just down the slipping route for far too long. Snap is in the same boat. It's hard to let go of the control when you co-founded both and you have visions you really want to make them happen. On the other hand, why overwork? If I were him, I pick one so i can have some breathing room (but I rather quit and spend my day time on non-business stuff like earn another degree or hike around). Just my thought.
product50 9y ago
Wow comparing Jack to any of those CEOs and Noto to those lieutenants is blasphemy. Remember, Twitter still hasn't had a single profitable quarter yet.

kloncks 9y ago

The company Jack Dorsey is CEO that is doing well isn't Twitter. If he is thinking logically, that would be where he will focus all his resources. Twitter needs and deserves a full-time CEO or to get sold to a larger company that can do something with it.

uptown 9y ago
I still feel Bloomberg LP would be the ideal buyer of Twitter.
- sebleon 9y ago
  Bloomberg could not afford Twitter - their market caps are $22Bn and $17Bn, respectively.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - adventured 9y ago
    Bloomberg is worth $50+ billion. They could afford Twitter. Michael Bloomberg is worth an estimated $52 billion per Forbes. He owns 88% of Bloomberg the company, and nearly all of his wealth is wrapped up in the company. It's an extremely profitable business with $9+ billion in revenue. It was worth ~$22 billion during the great recession, when Michael Bloomberg repurchased 20% of the company (rather brilliant timing, buying it from Merrill Lynch). That was a decade ago. https://www.forbes.com/profile/michael-bloomberg/ https://www.forbes.com/profile/michael-bloomberg/
    - RyanZAG 9y ago
      I'd guess he has more profitable and more useful things to spend his money on than Twitter.
      - adventured 9y ago
        Defending that archaic terminal monopoly for one. In all seriousness, as savvy as Bloomberg has been throughout his career, I'd expect him to wait until valuations plunge again, before making any big moves. I also wouldn't expect them to bother with Twitter. He's a signer to the giving pledge. At nearly 76, he's no doubt facing a serious decision about what to do with his company. I'd expect either a public listing, or a sale to a large financial firm (JP Morgan etc).
        mcintyre1994 9y ago
        Surely regulators wouldn't let Bloomberg be bought by a large financial firm whose competitors all rely on the data?
        whatok 9y ago
        I wouldn't even worry about regulators in that case. What financial institution is going to rely on a product that your competitor has control over?
dbbk 9y ago
Or he might take the Marissa Mayer approach and say hey, the other one is a harder challenge, and thus more interesting.

mathattack 9y ago

Jack had an all-star team around him. If he has to choose, why not go with the winner? I’m surprised this story isn’t bigger news.

jonknee 9y ago
> I’m surprised this story isn’t bigger news. It was on Wall Street, the stock has taken a beating since rumors of this leaked out.

bastawhiz 9y ago

Why would Jack choose Twitter over Square? Square, at least from my perspective, seems to be doing fairly well. Twitter, on the other hand, does not.

askafriend 9y ago
Because he's responsible for both companies, and he should spend a majority of time on whichever company needs more of his time (which as you suggested, might be Twitter).
- statusgraph 9y ago
  No, for the same reason you don't spend most of your time on your weakest employees or most of your money on your poorest investments. Feed your winners.
  - yeukhon 9y ago
    Tough question. You have two choices when it comes to the weakest employee. Either you reach out and spend time to UNDERSTAND how to help this employee, or you can just ask the employee to leave. A good manager would do the first unless there is absolutely no sign of any improvements. What is the definition of winners anyway? The one that gets the most code done and go home at 3PM? Or the one who is capable of delivering good work AND willing to help others to succeed? For some, bring a down company back on its feet is the most challenging and rewarding project. Dorsey has to choose. Perhaps he just isn't the right person to lead Twitter. Or maybe he has to give up one child over the other. This isn't the simple "let me sell the bad assets" question. Twitter is still living, and is making money, just down the slipping route for far too long. Snap is in the same boat. It's hard to let go of the control when you co-founded both and you have visions you really want to make them happen. On the other hand, why overwork? If I were him, I pick one so i can have some breathing room (but I rather quit and spend my day time on non-business stuff like earn another degree or hike around). Just my thought.

product50 9y ago

Wow comparing Jack to any of those CEOs and Noto to those lieutenants is blasphemy. Remember, Twitter still hasn't had a single profitable quarter yet.