3 ms·

I have a feeling the server cost to run twitter is pretty miniscule. The major costs are probably headcount (and they don't seem to be doing very much). I would

by natly 4y ago

I have a feeling the server cost to run twitter is pretty miniscule. The major costs are probably headcount (and they don't seem to be doing very much). I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't require that many subscriptions to keep twitter alive (and as long as it's still running it won't die down).

MisterBastahrd 4y ago
There's no amount of subscription revenue that will approach even a small fraction of ad support. That's a pipe dream.
- natly 4y ago
  I'm not saying subscription would equal ad revenue I'm saying cut out the fat in the form of supurflous PMs and the C and B player fraction of the 7,500 employees at twitter (each probably 100k or more a year) and I don't think it's infeasible the same amount of profit would remain on the table (or at least enough to keep it going - without the negative dependencies musk thinks an ad income is associated to).
- jasonwilk 4y ago
  That’s the point. Musk doesn’t need to maintain the ad business. Reduce the headcount, get enough subscriptions to break even and take a write off on the deflated value of the business. Just making it a great product, free of ads and better at spam.
  - MisterBastahrd 4y ago
    Sorry, but that's silly. He didn't spend that money to implode the company. Every single move the man has made since he hit puberty has been about filling his pockets, regardless of his altruistic self-narrative.
    - randomsearch 4y ago
      At the risk of replying to flamebait: if musk was only interested in money, so you really think he would have started SpaceX? I can’t think of an easier company to bankrupt yourself with. That assertion is objectively wrong. I can understand people not liking Musk, but I don’t understand why that leads to “he only cares about money” or “his business success is sheer opportunism” when those are wrong. Such assertions seem to be emotional rather than rational. “I don’t like Elon therefore he is 100% bad in every way and nothing he has ever done is skill”. Surely the more likely situation is - he’s sometimes good, sometimes bad, and his business success is a combination of hard work, skill, luck, and timing. Even if you’ve made Elon your personal enemy, surely you can accept that eg SpaceX is an amazing achievement.
      - MisterBastahrd 4y ago
        Yes, he would have founded SpaceX. Look at the market. It was there for anyone with enough capital to dominate. You think Bezos got into Blue Origin because he liked Star Trek? Being first to Mars is adorable. Being first to mine asteroids turns billions into trillions.
        randomsearch 4y ago
        “ It was there for anyone with enough capital to dominate.” Musk didn’t have much capital at the time. They almost ran out of money. Your argument might apply to Bezos, but not to Musk.
heartbreak 4y ago
The major costs after this deal closes will be about $1 billion per year in interest payments on the debt Twitter is incurring to go private. In addition to that Elon himself will have about another $1 billion per year in interest payments in his own debt for this deal.

by natly 4y ago

MisterBastahrd 4y ago

There's no amount of subscription revenue that will approach even a small fraction of ad support. That's a pipe dream.

natly 4y ago
I'm not saying subscription would equal ad revenue I'm saying cut out the fat in the form of supurflous PMs and the C and B player fraction of the 7,500 employees at twitter (each probably 100k or more a year) and I don't think it's infeasible the same amount of profit would remain on the table (or at least enough to keep it going - without the negative dependencies musk thinks an ad income is associated to).
jasonwilk 4y ago
That’s the point. Musk doesn’t need to maintain the ad business. Reduce the headcount, get enough subscriptions to break even and take a write off on the deflated value of the business. Just making it a great product, free of ads and better at spam.
- MisterBastahrd 4y ago
  Sorry, but that's silly. He didn't spend that money to implode the company. Every single move the man has made since he hit puberty has been about filling his pockets, regardless of his altruistic self-narrative.
  - randomsearch 4y ago
    At the risk of replying to flamebait: if musk was only interested in money, so you really think he would have started SpaceX? I can’t think of an easier company to bankrupt yourself with. That assertion is objectively wrong. I can understand people not liking Musk, but I don’t understand why that leads to “he only cares about money” or “his business success is sheer opportunism” when those are wrong. Such assertions seem to be emotional rather than rational. “I don’t like Elon therefore he is 100% bad in every way and nothing he has ever done is skill”. Surely the more likely situation is - he’s sometimes good, sometimes bad, and his business success is a combination of hard work, skill, luck, and timing. Even if you’ve made Elon your personal enemy, surely you can accept that eg SpaceX is an amazing achievement.
    - MisterBastahrd 4y ago
      Yes, he would have founded SpaceX. Look at the market. It was there for anyone with enough capital to dominate. You think Bezos got into Blue Origin because he liked Star Trek? Being first to Mars is adorable. Being first to mine asteroids turns billions into trillions.
      - randomsearch 4y ago
        “ It was there for anyone with enough capital to dominate.” Musk didn’t have much capital at the time. They almost ran out of money. Your argument might apply to Bezos, but not to Musk.

heartbreak 4y ago

The major costs after this deal closes will be about $1 billion per year in interest payments on the debt Twitter is incurring to go private. In addition to that Elon himself will have about another $1 billion per year in interest payments in his own debt for this deal.