[blhack]

It's about $25 Million a year.

[axod]

Of course the other factor:

  Twitter: funding $160m, you say rev $25m
  Twitpic: funding $0, rev $5m

So I think twitpic comes out pretty fantastically well.

[rythie]

That's in the short term of course. Twitpic is essentially a feature on top of Twitter and without Twitter, Twitpic wouldn't exist. In the end, if Twitter implemented picture hosting themselves, Twitpic would surely slowly die.

[jfarmer]

That's daft. Funding isn't a liability (in the financial sense), and those numbers don't say anything about growth prospects.

[axod]

It'll be interesting to see how Twitter grow their revenue. The number of customers who will pay $m's to do a deal seems reasonably small.

[johnrob]

For me, the most amazing thing is the "time to hockey stick": Friday night he starts hacking, and by Monday it's getting blogged about and going viral. That is an amazingly short amount of time to build something people want. Most of us have to iterate a long time to achieve that.

[blhack]

Fantastic point.

In terms of scaling, how much larger is twitter than twitpic? $160 Million larger?

[Readmore]

That is one way to look at it but the headline says. 'Twitter makes nothing.' So the comment is about setting the record straight, not comparing business models.

[jasonlbaptiste]

I still dont know what to make of these deals. On the one hand: Twitter brought in good revenue. This is smart and shows the value in their data.

On the other hand: I personally feel Twitter's real value to an acquirer like MSFT or GOOG is the data. The rest of it is kind of gravy and it's only there to provide the data (ie- you need people posting things in order to have the search data). In short, GOOG basically got the value they needed out of Twitter for a measly 25 million dollars. Why would they ever acquire them at what's sure to be a number at least 40x that amount?... Except to make sure someone else doesn't hence cutting off their access to the data.