[antics]

No profit model? Completely wrong.

According to the IPO docs they make about $2/1000 views in America (which is good) and were projected to make $1 billion in revenue this year (also good). This article reports that their first quarter revenue is about $250 million, more than double the previous year, which makes their prediction definitely feasible. The remaining question is whether they can turn this revenue into profit, and my answer is yes, because (1) the growth of their operating costs is dramatically outpaced by the growth of their revenue, and (2) most of their losses are due to acquisitions (and they are smart acquisitions). So overall this is a pretty strong portfolio and I'd say it's a completely reasonable bet they're going to be significantly profitable soon.

Now. Serious question: did you read this article? If yes you should be embarrassed at your misapprehension here, because in spite of the title, this data in this article actually paints a pretty damn rosy picture of Twitter's future. If no, then why are you commenting here? Here I am sounding cranky, but if you're going to do the ALL INTERNET SHOUTING CAPS thing then you'd better take care not to say something silly. Just my personal opinion, but next time I'd start by both reading the article and understanding the article, and I'd follow that up with taking care to make it sound like I don't think that everyone who disagrees with me is, blanket statement, stupid. Because some of us have done our homework and still disagree with you.

[zaidf]

If you read the article, you should know the primary concern is not the profits or revenues but rather the decline in product engagement/growth. What is your response to that? Your comment doesn't even make a single mention of the #1 reason to be very concerned about twitter.

[antics]

Thanks for the spirited reply, Zaid, but I never said I disagree with any of these points. I'm responding specifically to the ridiculous notion that profit could not possibly be in the future of a post-IPO Twitter, not this stuff about whether Twitter is actually in trouble. If you want to take issue with my position you should probably respond to something I actually said. It is less productive to pretend I am debating a different set of issues and then complain when I don't address these other issues.

(I also don't appreciate your assertion that I didn't read an article from which I cited specific factual statements. Obviously I did. This is all particularly annoying, since you seem to believe something that I think is mostly true, and not on something which I concretely disagree; it makes it seem like you're hunting for a disagreement and not conducting this conversation in good faith.)

[zaidf]

Timeline views were down nearly 7%, suggesting users were refreshing their feeds less often.

(1) Twitter makes most of its revenues from timeline views

(2) Timeline views are declining

(3) When a recently IPO'd company's biggest money making product is on the decline in terms of usage, that is hardly a rosy picture.

[antics]

Sure, it is certainly debatable that "rosy" was the right choice of words here (it probably was a bit bombastic). But unless your plan is to claim that it is impossible to be optimistic about this situation (which is more or less the position I have taken issue with), then I'm not interested in having this discussion.

I'm open to the possibility is wrong; I'm not open to the idea that this debate about the semantics of "rosy" is the most interesting thing to be said here.

Sorry if this is a bit blunt.