4 ms·
$TWTR's all-inclusive expenses were 25x higher than this. $5.6B/year = $470M/month, in support of 260M daily active users. $1.80/user-month, as compared vs. $0.
by perihelions 4y ago
$TWTR's all-inclusive expenses were 25x higher than this. $5.6B/year = $470M/month, in support of 260M daily active users. $1.80/user-month, as compared vs. $0.07/user-month on here (I'm only counting the 30k "active").
I feel like it's a bargain social media, both in feature-set and cost.
(I don't understand the server cost breakdown either, and I don't pretend do. Just doing an empirical comparison).
- charcircuit 4y agoThe incentives of optimizing for future revenue are different than those when you are optimizing for minimizing expenses. These values are not very comparable.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- lostlogin 4y agoWhich of those two is the one optimising for future revenue? Not trying to be a smart arse - it’s just that the obvious pick (Twitter) has been aiming for revenue from the beginning and haven’t really delivered.
- charcircuit 4y agoTwitter. >has been aiming for revenue from the beginning and haven’t really delivered. In 2021 twitter had 5.08 billion dollars of revenue. Their ad revenue divided by DAU was about $20. No mastodon instance is close to getting $20 per active user per year.
- lostlogin 4y agoI’ve made the most basic of errors. I was thinking I was discussing profit.
- TaylorAlexander 4y agoI find the comparison very interesting, in the broader debate of "how can not for profit services with no ads compete with giant for profit advertising based serices". I have really appreciated the analysis in this thread.