4 ms·

The Amazon comparison is terrible. They were still losing money! Whether they are doing it by giving something away for free or by selling on ridiculously tig

• gloob 17y ago
  The difference is that Amazon had a clear way to make money: make their revenue stream bigger. That doesn't and won't work for Twitter, because Twitter doesn't have a revenue stream to make bigger. Saying they're the same thing is like saying that the U.S. and Afghanistan are the same, because they both had elections. Well, true, but in one place the elections were not rigged, and in the other there's a good chance they were. "They still had an election!" of course, but there are significant practical differences.
• Semiapies 17y ago
  No, your attention to the issue is about a decade out of date. Amazon hasn't been losing money for years; they posted over $200 million profit for 2008. They had a working revenue stream, which meant that when they'd reached a point of sufficient growth, they had a slew of things they could reasonably adjust to achieve profitability. Twitter has no revenue stream. Twitter can't change prices or restrict spending to become profitable - it has no prices! They would have to actually create a business in order to become profitable.