4 ms·

Its death, if any, is primarily due to high burn rate, as you mention, which Musk moderated quite a bit, but the folks expecting its demise somehow blame it on

by tgma 3y ago

Its death, if any, is primarily due to high burn rate, as you mention, which Musk moderated quite a bit, but the folks expecting its demise somehow blame it on Musk, ironically.

lern_too_spel 3y ago
It was profitable when he bought it. It is unlikely to be profitable now, especially after the latest advertiser flight. People blaming Musk for Twitter's demise have good reason.
- tgma 3y ago
  > It was profitable when he bought it Nope.
  - VHRanger 3y ago
    [citation needed] It was profitable, and it's trivially easy to verify that it was profitable, because it was a public company before it got bought.
    - tgma 3y ago
      Yes, it is trivially easy to verify (yet you asked for a citation!) in the last 10-Q filing by Twitter, Inc. available to the public, the preceding three months of June 2022 their net income/loss per share is negative ($0.35) and was facing declining revenue. Citation: https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000141809122000147/twtr-20220630.htm https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/0001... Over the entire operation of the company up and until Musk's acquisition in aggregate, Twitter has spent more money than it made. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/delisted/TWTR/twitter/eps-earnings-per-share-diluted https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/delisted/TWTR/twitter/eps...
      - acdha 3y ago
        That shows they lost money that year only because of of a one-time settlement for a 2016 lawsuit. Without that they’d have had a profitable year as in 2019 and 2021, as per your own link. The problem they have now is that Musk’s instability cost them a lot of revenue but his poor management saddled them with significantly more debt. Now they need to make multiple times more profit than their best year just to pay his loan servicing.
doctorwho42 3y ago
Well he did saddle the company with a significant amount of debt when he bought the company.
gloryjulio 3y ago
That's a very biased view. He could have multiple rounds of layoffs like Amazon or Meta without affecting the operations too much. I'm not sure who the remaining 10% are who are still willing to stick with it. Software is not like the hardware spaces. If the good engineers do not like what they are receiving they would just leave for other places. He also killed the the ads revenue. Have you forgotten about that?
- tgma 3y ago
  Last time I checked Twitter was quite operational with a fraction of the people. Like every other big tech company it was obviously bloated. Wouldn’t be surprised if it still is. You are suggesting a costlier alternative to what has worked beautifully and will be taught in HBS case studies ten years from now. Already inspired the rest of the valley. Advertising revenue was on its way down pre-Elon and exacerbated by the macro conditions. Display ads is a tough business. Just look at competitors like Snap. Sure Elon image may have given some customers an easy out but that’s affecting revenue at the margin. Musk has bought a shitty business in the hope of magic happening which may very well happen because of his changes, albeit still hard to see, but the stupidity, if any, lies in his acquisition of a dud, not his execution post-acquisition which has been arguably perfect up until the questionable brand change to X whose verdict is still up in the air.
qwytw 3y ago
> which Musk moderated quite a bit, He had no choice because of all of them debt he offloaded to Twitter to fund the acquisition. Pretty much to pick between employees and making debt payments. Not sure why would a corporation prefer to have to pay half a billion in interest per year to having an additional 1000 or more employees? > somehow blame it on Musk In large part because of the debt which pretty much doomed Twitter...

by tgma 3y ago

Its death, if any, is primarily due to high burn rate, as you mention, which Musk moderated quite a bit, but the folks expecting its demise somehow blame it on Musk, ironically.

lern_too_spel 3y ago

It was profitable when he bought it. It is unlikely to be profitable now, especially after the latest advertiser flight. People blaming Musk for Twitter's demise have good reason.

tgma 3y ago
> It was profitable when he bought it Nope.
- VHRanger 3y ago
  [citation needed] It was profitable, and it's trivially easy to verify that it was profitable, because it was a public company before it got bought.
  - tgma 3y ago
    Yes, it is trivially easy to verify (yet you asked for a citation!) in the last 10-Q filing by Twitter, Inc. available to the public, the preceding three months of June 2022 their net income/loss per share is negative ($0.35) and was facing declining revenue. Citation: https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000141809122000147/twtr-20220630.htm https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/0001... Over the entire operation of the company up and until Musk's acquisition in aggregate, Twitter has spent more money than it made. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/delisted/TWTR/twitter/eps-earnings-per-share-diluted https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/delisted/TWTR/twitter/eps...
    - acdha 3y ago
      That shows they lost money that year only because of of a one-time settlement for a 2016 lawsuit. Without that they’d have had a profitable year as in 2019 and 2021, as per your own link. The problem they have now is that Musk’s instability cost them a lot of revenue but his poor management saddled them with significantly more debt. Now they need to make multiple times more profit than their best year just to pay his loan servicing.

doctorwho42 3y ago

Well he did saddle the company with a significant amount of debt when he bought the company.

gloryjulio 3y ago

That's a very biased view. He could have multiple rounds of layoffs like Amazon or Meta without affecting the operations too much. I'm not sure who the remaining 10% are who are still willing to stick with it. Software is not like the hardware spaces. If the good engineers do not like what they are receiving they would just leave for other places. He also killed the the ads revenue. Have you forgotten about that?

tgma 3y ago
Last time I checked Twitter was quite operational with a fraction of the people. Like every other big tech company it was obviously bloated. Wouldn’t be surprised if it still is. You are suggesting a costlier alternative to what has worked beautifully and will be taught in HBS case studies ten years from now. Already inspired the rest of the valley. Advertising revenue was on its way down pre-Elon and exacerbated by the macro conditions. Display ads is a tough business. Just look at competitors like Snap. Sure Elon image may have given some customers an easy out but that’s affecting revenue at the margin. Musk has bought a shitty business in the hope of magic happening which may very well happen because of his changes, albeit still hard to see, but the stupidity, if any, lies in his acquisition of a dud, not his execution post-acquisition which has been arguably perfect up until the questionable brand change to X whose verdict is still up in the air.

qwytw 3y ago

> which Musk moderated quite a bit, He had no choice because of all of them debt he offloaded to Twitter to fund the acquisition. Pretty much to pick between employees and making debt payments. Not sure why would a corporation prefer to have to pay half a billion in interest per year to having an additional 1000 or more employees? > somehow blame it on Musk In large part because of the debt which pretty much doomed Twitter...