5 ms·

100% agree, but I think that shows how not all tech valuations are created equal. Airbnb and Evernote, for example, both make sense of me. They provide immense

100% agree, but I think that shows how not all tech valuations are created equal. Airbnb and Evernote, for example, both make sense of me. They provide immense value to people (with obvious cash streams) and are not immediately replaceable. Meanwhile, I'd put Twitter and Path in with the Pets.com crew.

harryh 13y ago
Twitter provides immense value for me. Easily hundreds of dollars a year worth of value. Easily. I don't know if they can capture that value very easily. There is certainly immense risk. I'm not buying their stock. But there is definitely value there.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  Would you pay for the value they provide? If so, how much?
  - theorique 13y ago
    I would have no problem with paying $5-10 per month for each of Google, Facebook, and Twitter, as they are currently constituted (although as long as I'm paying money, let's say that they are 100% ad free). The trouble is, if they charged this, then a great many people who add value to my experience of Facebook and Twitter would drop away, reducing my own experience of the networks and probably making me question whether it was worth the money for me. (Google is a separate question because the network effect is less of an issue for web-apps, email, calendar, and so forth - they are still valuable for my personal use even without the sharing and networking features.) Many people already pay similar prices for the higher end versions of Dropbox or Evernote, but again the "web app" vs "social network" factor comes into play. It doesn't benefit me as a Dropbox or Evernote user if more people use Dropbox or Evernote, except in very indirect ways, whereas it does benefit me as a Facebook user if my friends all use Facebook.
- morgante 13y ago
  > Easily hundreds of dollars a year worth of value. Easily. So naturally you'd pay hundreds of dollars a year for a subscription, right?
  - nl 13y ago
    You have to be careful there. Twitter is valuable because of the huge audience. Making everyone pay will lose that. BUT, there is an important subset of people who will easily pay hundreds for a subscription. LinkedIn is a good example: free for everyone, but recruiters pay for extra access. It's easy to imagine brands paying Twitter for a similar model.
    - morgante 13y ago
      Absolutely. If Twitter could successfully get people who derive real business value from it to pay (like how LinkedIn does), they can succeed. But unfortunately I don't think even most Twitter power users will pay. Even if brands will pay, it's a fundamentally different equation than LinkedIn's in that there are a lot more recruiters out there than brands.
  - harryh 13y ago
    Yes, absolutely. Though I worry that a lot of the people I follow wouldn't. And if they left, then the value goes down for me. That's why I said it's hard for Twitter to capture that value.
nl 13y ago
Meanwhile, I'd put Twitter and Path in with the Pets.com crew. I'd put Twitter in with NBC/CBS/Fox and other TV stations that sell advertising against entertainment. That's a pretty well-proven business model with an obvious cash stream.

harryh 13y ago

Twitter provides immense value for me. Easily hundreds of dollars a year worth of value. Easily. I don't know if they can capture that value very easily. There is certainly immense risk. I'm not buying their stock. But there is definitely value there.

toomuchtodo 13y ago
Would you pay for the value they provide? If so, how much?
- theorique 13y ago
  I would have no problem with paying $5-10 per month for each of Google, Facebook, and Twitter, as they are currently constituted (although as long as I'm paying money, let's say that they are 100% ad free). The trouble is, if they charged this, then a great many people who add value to my experience of Facebook and Twitter would drop away, reducing my own experience of the networks and probably making me question whether it was worth the money for me. (Google is a separate question because the network effect is less of an issue for web-apps, email, calendar, and so forth - they are still valuable for my personal use even without the sharing and networking features.) Many people already pay similar prices for the higher end versions of Dropbox or Evernote, but again the "web app" vs "social network" factor comes into play. It doesn't benefit me as a Dropbox or Evernote user if more people use Dropbox or Evernote, except in very indirect ways, whereas it does benefit me as a Facebook user if my friends all use Facebook.
morgante 13y ago
> Easily hundreds of dollars a year worth of value. Easily. So naturally you'd pay hundreds of dollars a year for a subscription, right?
- nl 13y ago
  You have to be careful there. Twitter is valuable because of the huge audience. Making everyone pay will lose that. BUT, there is an important subset of people who will easily pay hundreds for a subscription. LinkedIn is a good example: free for everyone, but recruiters pay for extra access. It's easy to imagine brands paying Twitter for a similar model.
  - morgante 13y ago
    Absolutely. If Twitter could successfully get people who derive real business value from it to pay (like how LinkedIn does), they can succeed. But unfortunately I don't think even most Twitter power users will pay. Even if brands will pay, it's a fundamentally different equation than LinkedIn's in that there are a lot more recruiters out there than brands.
- harryh 13y ago
  Yes, absolutely. Though I worry that a lot of the people I follow wouldn't. And if they left, then the value goes down for me. That's why I said it's hard for Twitter to capture that value.

nl 13y ago

Meanwhile, I'd put Twitter and Path in with the Pets.com crew. I'd put Twitter in with NBC/CBS/Fox and other TV stations that sell advertising against entertainment. That's a pretty well-proven business model with an obvious cash stream.