[emoII]

Perhaps they should only have headcount to keep the service running. Twitters value proposition is still exactly the same as it was 10 years ago, and removing any new features since would not be noticed by most. Developing new features once the initial success has come could be considered making it worse if anything (e.g. reddit). Isn't the lack of new features one of the reasons we like HN?

[rsynnott]

> Perhaps they should only have headcount to keep the service running.

These companies are generally valued as they are on the expectation of future growth. If Google said “yeah, we’re just going to keep everything as it is, forever, on a skeleton crew”, its investors would _freak out_, and rightly so.

[ClumsyPilot]

> Perhaps they should only have headcount to keep the service running.

So you beleieve twitter can maintain it's market share for prolonged period of time with zero improvement? That means it is facing zero competition?

Do you believe free market has failed?

[icedchai]

Twitter made only very small, incremental product improvements in its ~10 years as a public company. It may as well round down to zero. That's one of the reasons its been gutted by Musk and co. Trimming the fat was the right decision there.

[ClumsyPilot]

Have you inspected the systems they developed for marketing and ad targeting?

Have changed the algorithms they used to drive engagement, serve you most interrsting tweets, make sure you are angry and depressed?

What do you think about the system they built to manage political slant, nudity, hatespeech and racism?

Or have youjust looked at their UI, and decided there are no new buttons and thus no worl was done?

[icedchai]

I see your point, but I’m looking at the end-user experience. The results / product improvements were mediocre at best.