3 ms·

I see he changed the headline. Pretty funny. Not sure how this person has any insight on Twilio financials. It'd be interesting to get this person's own backgro

• josh2600 14y ago
  I don't think anyone would try to argue that Twilio is profitable. They spend a lot of money and while they're going to move 500M minutes this year, those minutes are not free. The author makes several valid points but undermines the overall critical nature with what appear to be non-sequiturs. If this article was a frank accounting of Twilio's position with some postulative math about their sustainability, I don't think anyone would've objected. The issue was the accusations, most of the content is factually correct (Twilio did raise a lot of money and continues to spend a lot of money). What we have are two different world views, and it's not clear yet who is correct.
  • pla3rhat3r 14y ago
    Don't get me wrong I think every company has it's issues. Some of the companies you would think are the most stable are some of the most chaotic. However, there aren't too many instances where an article is taken seriously when it's written by a competitor. The fact that Johnny is writing this article while still working at a competitor means this article is meaningless. It holds no water. It comes off as someone who just wants to slam his competitor. If he wants to legitimize this article, talk about the challenges they face. Talk about the problems they've had in the past. Without it, it's a puff piece. He might as well have published this in the Sun.