[blairbeckwith]

If the engineers and product team were effective, there would be more product development.

If the marketing team was effective, there would be more user growth.

If the sales team was effective, there would be more revenue.

If everyone was more effective, Twitter would be worth more.

It’s probably an over-simplification, but Twitter being stagnant is not exactly a minority opinion.

[AlexandrB]

There's also the other possibility that Twitter, as a product, is limited to a more niche audience than something like Facebook.

More revenue, growth, or stock price is not a given regardless of who's working there.

[mehrdada]

> There's also the other possibility that Twitter, as a product, is limited to a more niche audience than something like Facebook.

You state that as if what twitter is as a product is set in stone and delivered as a commandment. It is defined by the product people, engineers, and the executives of the company who have been doing a terrible job at that. If they were competent and the way out was to be Facebook, they should’ve been Facebook by now. FWIW, Facebook was not Facebook either. It didn’t have news feed before it copied twitter. Ironic.

[MichaelBurge]

That's the same possibility: "Employees are ineffective, because the product has no need for them".