3 ms·
Apples and oranges.
by bsg75 4y ago
Apples and oranges.
- coldtea 4y agoNot in any way that matters to the comparison.
- jleyank 4y agoYeah. Apple sold hardware and software to its end users/customers. Twitter sold its end-users. Not really the same kind of market.
- smoldesu 4y agoTim Cook did an excellent job pivoting towards Twitter's business model, in fairness.
- jleyank 4y agoIt’s harder to turn a company around that doesn’t actually make anything. And it’s communication mechanism isn’t controlled. Thus, keeping the mojo for twitters existence might be difficult
- alehlopeh 4y agoI like how you ended your comment with “in fairness” to make it seem fair to allege that Apple has “pivoted” their business model by placing some ads for apps in the App Store.
- coldtea 4y agoThe core concept behind the analogy is not about the business model, the same way it's not important if Apple has an apple for a logo and Twitter a bird, or whether one is based in Cupertino and the other in San Francisco, or whether one is about hardware and the other about social media. The intended takeway is that a flailing company that needs to turn itself around can and often will make big lay offs, and that those are not some unique signal of impeding doom (and TFA doesn't imply that it's some signal of guaranteed success either). Twitter might very well crash, but not because of doing lay offs. That's the message behind the analogy, and only things pertaining to that are relevant to refute the analogy.