5 ms·

Facebook had layoffs this year so that it will be profitable in about two. Odds are they'll survive. But they won't be as high profile as they used to be. It wa

Facebook had layoffs this year so that it will be profitable in about two. Odds are they'll survive. But they won't be as high profile as they used to be. It was a big deal there was "live news" coverage on Facebook through CNN in 2008 and 2009 with the election. Soon that'll be seen as a partnership as stupid as Yahoo! Music with RealNetworks Rhapsody. My bet is Twitter. Its ubiquitous, and yet: useless. It's userbase is relatively small, and yet there's no good way to monetize them. Its provocative enough that people either love it or hate it, but not nearly useful that people will get an account just to have one (like richer social networks, where people joined Myspace/Facebook to avoid network isolation).

run4yourlives 18y ago
I tend to disagree. I'm not a twitter user, but one thing they do have is a user base that finds their service essential. This is ripe for income generation. Charge $5-10 a month and viola, revenue. (I think at the moment they look to be exploring other options, but that's a viable fall back from my view.) I don't think you can say the same for facebook. Very few people will pay for this thing. I'm willing to bet that their own internal research confirms this. Facebook's biggest issue with regards to profitability is not so much that they need to find ways to make money, but that they need to find ways to make enough money to pay back all the money they've already used. They are leveraged to a crazy degree, and seem to spend like drunken sailors. They've got a huge workforce and have innovated little since launching their "platform", which has been all but abandoned - from a user perspective - because of abuse. They've got a leadership problem in my opinion. And that's a hard problem to solve.
- unalone 18y ago
  Facebook has been approaching profitability for a while. They've got a bunch of different models, some of them have been working, and they're constantly refining. Both Facebook and Twitter would collapse if they charged. Not as many people would pay for Twitter as you seem to think.
  - run4yourlives 18y ago
    Twitter doesn't have the same operational costs though, so that top-line number doesn't need to be as high as you would think it would be.
    - unalone 18y ago
      But Twitter is valuable because of the number of people using it. Get rid of them and other users dwindle, and it would feed back on itself. That's the same problem that Facebook has: each user less is a drop in value for the site.
      - redrobot5050 18y ago
        Actually, Twitter's users are worthless. They are a cost to Twitter -- and they bring in no revenue (yet). (Obviously this doesn't apply to their new business/commercial accounts). Facebook's users at least see Ads. I have actually bought stuff off Facebook because the targeting was perfect. And Twitter's user base is about 6 million, which is also a far cry from Facebook's 50 to 175 million, depending on what number you believe.
  - gustaf 18y ago
    Twitter could put search on every page (Twitter Search), generate 100 million searches/month and then put search ads next to them.
    - unalone 18y ago
      What kinds of ads would appeal to people searching on Twitter? I've never done a Twitter search where a paid ad would have made much sense.
      - albertsun 18y ago
        You've never searched for a company or a brand to see what people were saying about them? (Competitors or damage control PR ads) Or for a conference hashtag? (Local eateries and hotspots) Etc.
- herval 18y ago
  "Charge $5-10 a month and viola, revenue" That would be the perfect moment for someone to launch a similar tool. I guess Pownce's history would be a lot different if it could be launched the day twitter decides to do that. seriously, $10 a month to read what your friends are doing? As useful as twitter can be, it's never worth that much a month!
petercooper 18y ago
I'd pay $10 a month for Twitter no problems (only if it was for multiple accounts though, I have a few!). I've seen a lot of people say the same. Twitter is monetizable - it doesn't need to be "useful" in any productive sense. Flower shops are still in business but they just flowers. Jewelry stores are still in business and they just sell pretty rocks.

run4yourlives 18y ago

I tend to disagree. I'm not a twitter user, but one thing they do have is a user base that finds their service essential. This is ripe for income generation. Charge $5-10 a month and viola, revenue. (I think at the moment they look to be exploring other options, but that's a viable fall back from my view.) I don't think you can say the same for facebook. Very few people will pay for this thing. I'm willing to bet that their own internal research confirms this. Facebook's biggest issue with regards to profitability is not so much that they need to find ways to make money, but that they need to find ways to make enough money to pay back all the money they've already used. They are leveraged to a crazy degree, and seem to spend like drunken sailors. They've got a huge workforce and have innovated little since launching their "platform", which has been all but abandoned - from a user perspective - because of abuse. They've got a leadership problem in my opinion. And that's a hard problem to solve.

unalone 18y ago
Facebook has been approaching profitability for a while. They've got a bunch of different models, some of them have been working, and they're constantly refining. Both Facebook and Twitter would collapse if they charged. Not as many people would pay for Twitter as you seem to think.
- run4yourlives 18y ago
  Twitter doesn't have the same operational costs though, so that top-line number doesn't need to be as high as you would think it would be.
  - unalone 18y ago
    But Twitter is valuable because of the number of people using it. Get rid of them and other users dwindle, and it would feed back on itself. That's the same problem that Facebook has: each user less is a drop in value for the site.
    - redrobot5050 18y ago
      Actually, Twitter's users are worthless. They are a cost to Twitter -- and they bring in no revenue (yet). (Obviously this doesn't apply to their new business/commercial accounts). Facebook's users at least see Ads. I have actually bought stuff off Facebook because the targeting was perfect. And Twitter's user base is about 6 million, which is also a far cry from Facebook's 50 to 175 million, depending on what number you believe.
- gustaf 18y ago
  Twitter could put search on every page (Twitter Search), generate 100 million searches/month and then put search ads next to them.
  - unalone 18y ago
    What kinds of ads would appeal to people searching on Twitter? I've never done a Twitter search where a paid ad would have made much sense.
    - albertsun 18y ago
      You've never searched for a company or a brand to see what people were saying about them? (Competitors or damage control PR ads) Or for a conference hashtag? (Local eateries and hotspots) Etc.
herval 18y ago
"Charge $5-10 a month and viola, revenue" That would be the perfect moment for someone to launch a similar tool. I guess Pownce's history would be a lot different if it could be launched the day twitter decides to do that. seriously, $10 a month to read what your friends are doing? As useful as twitter can be, it's never worth that much a month!

petercooper 18y ago

I'd pay $10 a month for Twitter no problems (only if it was for multiple accounts though, I have a few!). I've seen a lot of people say the same. Twitter is monetizable - it doesn't need to be "useful" in any productive sense. Flower shops are still in business but they just flowers. Jewelry stores are still in business and they just sell pretty rocks.