4 ms·

yeah, "profitable". Let's say at break even. And yet somehow they needed 200 more million, for a total of 360 million sunk into that ship. Do you have a clue o

by dotcoma 16y ago

yeah, "profitable". Let's say at break even. And yet somehow they needed 200 more million, for a total of 360 million sunk into that ship. Do you have a clue of how profitable a company in which 360 million dollars were invested needs to be? Do you really see them ever getting even close to being that profitable? How?

getsat 16y ago
Having worked from Twitter's office in late 2009, I'm privy to a bit of their financials from that time and onward. They're definitely profitable since then. Profitable companies often raise money... I don't see why this is out of the ordinary. It lets you scale and make more money more quickly. Another startup I worked for did the exact same thing as soon as they became profitable.
- dotcoma 16y ago
  yeah, sure, for example, they could sell data about their tweets to search engines other than Google and Bing. Oh, wait, too bad there are none - or not in the parts of the world where people use Twitter, anyway. so, yes, 200 million on top of 160 million already invested for a company that is making 10 or 20 million at most and that has no other way of making money in sight is, well, yes, I would dare say quite out of the ordinary.
  - dotcoma 16y ago
    all right, guys, group-think wins, I lose. Have a nice day!
  - getsat 16y ago
    Where are you getting this 10-20mm number? That wasn't even accurate (it's too low) a year ago. The value of the deal with Google alone was 30mm. That's just a single facet of their monetisation strategies. They've also introduced Sponsored Tweets and a bunch of other things since then. Fun fact: Twitter actually violated their SLA with Google and Bing before the first month was even up. They guaranteed a maximum amount of time between a tweet being published and it being available via the commercial API access given to Google/Bing. FYI, I am not downvoting you. I can't even downvote yet. I don't even like Twitter and think it's mostly a waste of time.

by dotcoma 16y ago

getsat 16y ago

Having worked from Twitter's office in late 2009, I'm privy to a bit of their financials from that time and onward. They're definitely profitable since then. Profitable companies often raise money... I don't see why this is out of the ordinary. It lets you scale and make more money more quickly. Another startup I worked for did the exact same thing as soon as they became profitable.

dotcoma 16y ago
yeah, sure, for example, they could sell data about their tweets to search engines other than Google and Bing. Oh, wait, too bad there are none - or not in the parts of the world where people use Twitter, anyway. so, yes, 200 million on top of 160 million already invested for a company that is making 10 or 20 million at most and that has no other way of making money in sight is, well, yes, I would dare say quite out of the ordinary.
- dotcoma 16y ago
  all right, guys, group-think wins, I lose. Have a nice day!
- getsat 16y ago
  Where are you getting this 10-20mm number? That wasn't even accurate (it's too low) a year ago. The value of the deal with Google alone was 30mm. That's just a single facet of their monetisation strategies. They've also introduced Sponsored Tweets and a bunch of other things since then. Fun fact: Twitter actually violated their SLA with Google and Bing before the first month was even up. They guaranteed a maximum amount of time between a tweet being published and it being available via the commercial API access given to Google/Bing. FYI, I am not downvoting you. I can't even downvote yet. I don't even like Twitter and think it's mostly a waste of time.