4 ms·

its a funny world where 170M is seen in a negative light.

• random42 14y ago
  Its all relative.
• talhof8 14y ago
  170M actives is not that bad at in my opinion, but 170M out of 500+M is quite strange. And yet, we have to remember twitter is much more suitable for brands and celebrities than it is for the "normal"-less-known people
  • potatolicious 14y ago
    170M out of 500M seems pretty normal for me, in fact, better than most sites, hip social network startup or otherwise. In most online communities I'd expect the active/inactive ratio to be worse.
• retube 14y ago
  depends on whether investors have put money in assuming 170m or much higher.
• yo-mf 14y ago
  In any real world analysis, you are completely right. However in the tech hype center, it is a troublesome sign. Most people would be happy to even get a quarter of that number. A significant portion of Silicon Valley has gone all in on the social web. With Facebook smarting from their IPO debacle, and Zynga slowly marching toward penny stock status, Twitter is their last great "social" hope. And this is not just VC's either, as the entire Valley has built a massive ecosystem about everything social web. Should Twitter falter, it will wash out a massive portion of capital on the scale not seen since the first dot com bust. In this context, 170MM active users is not so great. The bar has been set at 1 billion real, active users. This is especially when one looks at visits and engagement, where Facebook is still very much dominant. With Instagram out of the picture, Foursquare stalling, Path seen as small potatoes and Pinterest's potential questionable, Twitter is really the last massive, independent social tech play left.