3 ms·
my theory is that their current head of product, who was the founder of Periscope which Twitter bought pre-launch, made the argument for Live Video (his app) ov
by tempsy 6y ago
my theory is that their current head of product, who was the founder of Periscope which Twitter bought pre-launch, made the argument for Live Video (his app) over Vine at that time when Live streaming eg Meerkat/Periscope looked to be the "next big thing" in social media (which it never became).
Twitter had to choose one video strategy and went with live because of Periscope and it ended up being the wrong decision.
- someperson 6y agoTwitter in 2016 was bleeding money. In that financial situation, offloading a product that was losing $10 million/month without an immediate path to profitability was a reasonable decision. The question is why a cash rich Silicon Valley company didn't buy Vine for pennies on the dollar. It could have been Google. It could have been Apple. It could have been Microsoft. It could have been Facebook. Personally, I think it could even have been revived by private equity (who would immediately do deep cost cutting to bring the burn rate down).