[gigatexal]

Twitter is in the news all the time with POTUS, or something else. Talk show hosts like Fallon use it as a bit on his show. And yet it just can't grow. It's time to start charging the twitter faithful a WhatsApp style fee of say something small a year or monthly. I'd hate for twitter to go under.

[tdkl]

Grow where ? Do people realize there are actual limits on growth because humans aren't infinite ?

[gigatexal]

319 million monthly active users. Say roughly half are bots that's still 150 million users and if only 83 million we converted to pay a dollar a month for a better experience (no ads, no bots, and some other value ad) it'd be another a billion in almost pure profit every year. I don't know. J just want the service to stay around though it could improve.

[infamouscow]

In the past this has been a sustainable theory. Growth in the physical world through railroads or petroleum were much slower and far less directly tied to a single person. So from the perspective of investors it seems like a reasonable argument. What we're seeing for the first time with Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat is the maximum size that physics allows.

[bananarepdev]

I don't think growth necessarily means growing the user base.

[gigatexal]

Exactly I'm thinking growing revenue so as to not fold. Maybe though they never should have gone public. Maybe the business model just doesn't exist for them to be profitable and maybe people have moved on from twitter to Facebook and Snapchat.

[debacle]

There are different flavors of growth. For mature companies, it usually means cash money and ARPU.

[jasonkostempski]

Sounds like a sure way to kill it off completely. Maybe if they just stop trying to add crap to something that was pretty much perfect the day it came out, they could just coast on whatever cash they're already bringing in.

[Thrillington]

It had no ads or other potential for revenue the day it came out.

[jasonkostempski]

They can sell direct access to the live stream of data at huge prices I'm sure.