The article misses the point of the original techcrunch article. Techcrunch never questioned how much/if twitter could/would make money. Rather, the original a

The article misses the point of the original techcrunch article. Techcrunch never questioned how much/if twitter could/would make money. Rather, the original article made a genuinely interesting point that choosing to turn on revenue generation mechanisms (which is obviously possible for twitter) poses a risk for twitter if they're seeking an acquisition. That risk comes from the fact that real revenue gives acquirers something concrete to base their purchase price on, rather than a speculative guess at revenue potential. I don't know if this is actually influencing twitter's thinking, but I certainly found the idea interesting. This article I simply found annoying, because the tone is almost haughty while the content demonstrates the author didn't understand (or maybe care about?) the point of the article he referenced.