[_jal]

I think it is fair to say that left to its own devices (that is, pretend the last year of disruption and then this hadn't happened), Twitter could have become profitable enough to muddle on.

Everyone knew they had too many employees, and that big money-making possibilities... don't seem to be there, due to the nature of the niche they've carved. But they had a lot of money in the bank, so they didn't need to make any sudden movements. Sensible downsizing and incremental improvement of the bottom line, and, yeah, that's a viable business.

It may not be super exciting, but if you want exciting, head south on 101, Meta is about 40 minutes out depending on time of day.

[type-r]

16 years isn't enough time to figure out a profitable business strategy? How much longer would you have given them?

[ClumsyPilot]

Business thats covering its costs doesn't need anyone to give them anything. They just have to survive. They were surviving.

They could turn no profit in a hundred years, and thats fine.

[type-r]

A business that does not turn a profit pretty explicitly does need people to give them money though right?

[ClumsyPilot]

it can be cash neutral