4 ms·
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. P
by 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 agoyeah, 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 agoall right, guys, group-think wins, I lose. Have a nice day!
- getsat 16y agoWhere 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.