3 ms·
> If you really had to, you could probably run Twitter with a very small staff, and the computing outsourced to AWS. Why didn't they though? Why did they becom
by Traubenfuchs 4y ago
> If you really had to, you could probably run Twitter with a very small staff, and the computing outsourced to AWS.
Why didn't they though? Why did they become a monster that, as we are seeing right now, can survive easily with about half of its employees gone in a heartbeat?
- Robotbeat 4y agoIncompetent leadership that maybe should’ve been fired for cause?
- kweingar 4y ago> can survive easily with about half of its employees gone in a heartbeat A bit premature to make this claim imo
- throwaway1777 4y agoThe answer is because promotions depend on growing your org. This is extremely common in big tech and known as empire building. You’d be hard pressed to find a company where this isn’t the case.
- yamtaddle 4y agoInvestment, too. Investors want to see activity, and you're better off showing useless activity than none. Plus, you don't grow to a tech behemoth (Google, Microsoft, Facebook, et c.) by running smart & lean. You might get bought by them that way (cf. WhatsApp, and maybe even Minecraft) but you don't become one of them. So if leadership/investors thought Twitter had a shot at joining the big-boy club, maybe that's why.
- indymike 4y ago> This is extremely common in big tech and known as empire building. Great companies focus on business performance not headcount. I'm more impressed with leaders that generate more positive metrics per dollar. Sometimes it takes headcount, but most of the time, a really great exec can make more revenue/growth/market share happen with the same or less headcount.