7 ms·
> They could easily be profitable if they cared to. They don't. They shouldn't. And herein lies the problem with tech stock IPOs of this generation and this ki
by brymaster 13y ago
> They could easily be profitable if they cared to. They don't. They shouldn't.
And herein lies the problem with tech stock IPOs of this generation and this kind of thinking.
Investors are supposed to sleep easy that they've bought stock in an unprofitable company? Pretty sure the business model of "touching lives" isn't going to sit well.
Twitter is just another useless "tech" startup powered by bullshit but soon any sucker will be able to buy in on the dream. This sort of practice should be illegal. What the hell are they selling? Tweets?
- nwzpaperman 13y agoFollowers, but that may just be a description for something different. PS - Well said.
- Zombieball 13y agoAmazon often operates at a break-even or loss yet investors sleep quite easy putting their money into AMZN stock.
- brymaster 13y agoNot really. http://ycharts.com/companies/AMZN/net_income http://ycharts.com/companies/AMZN/net_income Amazon actually sells and produces things.
- Zombieball 13y agoYeah they also invest heavily in infrastructure. I am not sure if the same can be said of Twitter...
- icefox 13y ago> investors sleep quite easy [citation needed]
- unclebucknasty 13y agoTwitter vs. Amazon? Seriously? C'mon!
- jusben1369 13y agoSame thing Google does. Targeted Ads. Is Google bullshit?
- brymaster 13y agoNo, "promoted" tweets/followers/trends aren't even close to targeted ads or what Google does.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- hkmurakami 13y ago>And herein lies the problem with tech stock IPOs of this generation Of this generation? If anything there are far fewer money bleeding IPOs than there were in the late 90's.