2 ms·
But why would he bother? If the company was really in such bad shape, why not just let it fail and create a competing service (for a lot less than $44B)? In an
by dpkirchner 4y ago
But why would he bother? If the company was really in such bad shape, why not just let it fail and create a competing service (for a lot less than $44B)?
In any case, from my perspective Twitter didn't really make serious mistakes. They got $44B for the company despite its issues.
- kulahan 4y agoHe didn't buy the service so much as he bought the users.
- rvz 4y ago> But why would he bother? If the company was really in such bad shape, why not just let it fail and create a competing service (for a lot less than $44B)? The value in Twitter is its network effect, social inertia and integrations in hundreds of thousands of websites, blogs, apps and APIs with 220M+ daily active users still using it every day. Recreating that from scratch makes absolutely no sense. There is no serious alternative to Twitter and it is better to buy it instead of building it all over again. > In any case, from my perspective Twitter didn't really make serious mistakes. Twitter clearly over-hired like the rest of the tech companies and was wasting millions a day. It is either the mounting costs would get them in the end or someone else would reverse that downward trend to insolvency. Drastic action was the appropriate method to stem the losses.