[jacquesm]

Why would twitter have to be more than it already is?

It has a fairly unique place in the whole social media constellation and has long term viability. So what if it didn't become the #1 go to place for everything and anything.

Concentrate on that core, make it work flawlessly and keep a good balance between commerce and utility. Better that than selling out to Facebook or Google, guard that independence.

[joobus]

Because they make no money!

[TeMPOraL]

That's why we can't have nice things - for longer than just a while, at least.

[nsns]

Perhaps we could, by adopting the way Firefox, Wikipedia, Internet Archive et al. operate.

[mixedCase]

Doesn't Firefox rely on search engine backing?

[swift]

Yes, they do. They are struggling to reduce their dependence on it but have not seen much success.

[gkya]

Can't they charge for things like verified accounts, too big photos, etc.; organise paid talks/forums of very high-profile users and sell gear and pro-grade client software? I don't use Twitter but I guess many organisations, companies and celebs alike wouldn't care to pay for these. They could also start a cheap <handle>@twitter.io mail service.

[adw]

They'd have to sell a heck of a lot of those to justify their valuation.

[jacquesm]

So don't. Just run it as a profitable business.

[gkya]

Well something is better than nothing.

[swift]

"Wouldn't care to pay for these" means the same as "wouldn't like to pay for these": it means that they would not be interested in paying for them. I suspect you meant to use a phrase like "wouldn't mind paying for these". I hope this is helpful and doesn't come across as a pedantic correction. =)

[gkya]

> wouldn't mind

Yes that's what I meant. Thanks, it's helpful, "care" is a bit ambiguous indeed, sorry :)

[goseeastarwar]

EPS isn't far from zero. There are plenty of levers to pull to run Twitter as a profitable business given $2B rev/yr. You're seeing some of it already with them freeing up vacant office space, and I wouldn't be surprised if they did that because they're scaling back hiring.

[flyinglizard]

Arguably, Twitter is worth more to someone (likely an old school media giant) as a strategic platform than it's worth as a business. Twitter has immense influence that it's unable to monetize. Yes, it generates revenue, but that's true of nearly business with that large of a user base; but the real influence of Twitter as a cross-connnect between all layers of society and as a tool for creating trends isn't really tapped into.

[goseeastarwar]

You may be correct, but you're talking about two billion dollars as if it's not a lot of money. I don't have a dog in this fight, but the twitter business model is actually quite impressive as long as you don't compare it to facebook.

[flyinglizard]

I'm not dismissing the $2bn revenue at all - but the buyer will get that and the strategic leverage from the platform.

[rhizome]

In your estimation, which old school media giant(s) could successfully increase Twitter's value? Could they do it without relying solely on old-school strategies copied from the radio, TV, and print advertising they already know how to do?

[flyinglizard]

I admit such strategies have failed more often than succeeded. It's difficult to create "organic synergy" without alienating users (who tend to be suspicious of such mergers in the first place). But Twitter has unique power at news breaking and creating direct dialogue around events, and it's surely worth a premium above the bare financials. The value created is not by making Twitter better, but leveraging it's abilities to the benefit of the buyer. What's a company worth as a stand alone entity and what's it worth as part of a greater organization are two different things. I could totally see someone like Newscorp buying them.

[type0]

> I could totally see someone like Newscorp buying them.

I do too, but I don't see any bright future for Twitter and its users in this case.

[rad88]

Every company with investors has to be more than it is.