Cont: Musk buys Twitter II

arthwollipot said:
There's plenty of activity on Threads. Like any other social media, you need to find the accounts that you enjoy following.
Click to expand...

The accounts I enjoy following are not on Threads. The accounts that are on Threads I don't enjoy following.

Honestly I'm not sure there will ever be a direct Twitter replacement. A big feature of Twitter was that it was open to access even if you didn't have an account. Threads is login walled, Bluesky is login walled, and Twitter is increasingly becoming login walled under Musk's leadership.

The ease in which Twitter posts could escape Twitter and be viewed by a general audience, say by being embedded in a news article or shared by direct link, was probably a big part of why it became such a popular point of information distribution rather than just a social network intended for the smaller audience of registered users.

It's hard to imagine journalists, politicians, and other public figures getting as much use of places like Threads or Bluesky so long as their content is hidden behind the login wall.

Not even sure if this business model is viable though, Twitter was famously not profitable and like many of these social media sites, seemed to think that continued growth was more important and they'd figure out how to monetize it later.
 
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost said:
The ease in which Twitter posts could escape Twitter and be viewed by a general audience, say by being embedded in a news article or shared by direct link, was probably a big part of why it became such a popular point of information distribution rather than just a social network intended for the smaller audience of registered users.
Click to expand...
That didn't happen straight away. Not even remotely. Twitter was about for quite a long time before news organisations and other sites had easy-to-use embed buttons. You should be comparing Threads to what Twitter was like four months after it launched. By that metric, Threads is far more sophisticated.

In the meantime, there's always this:


https://www.threads.net/@arthwollipot/post/CwTfrqfBPXX
 
For me the problem is that at the time Twitter were learning how to be effective and, changing to make their product more popular. They were doing the heavy lifting to find out how to make a popular & effective social media site.

Now that all of the replacements are trying to replace Twitter they're not looking at the things that Twitter did well or made it useful, they're just re-inventing the wheel.
 
Mongrel said:
For me the problem is that at the time Twitter were learning how to be effective and, changing to make their product more popular. They were doing the heavy lifting to find out how to make a popular & effective social media site.

Now that all of the replacements are trying to replace Twitter they're not looking at the things that Twitter did well or made it useful, they're just re-inventing the wheel.
Click to expand...

Partly because, despite Twitter being quite large and popular, it was never particularly profitable.

The silicon valley model of "grow now, monetize later" is all well and good until the investment money dries up.

it's not really surprising that none of these competitors are willing to do an exact clone of Twitter, but are instead trying to figure out a version of Twitter that is actually profitable.

All this brings you back to the point that Musk was an idiot to borrow a bunch of money buy Twitter and saddle the generally unprofitable company with huge amounts of debt. Even if he had never implemented any of his idiotic changes, the debt burden alone was likely unsustainable.
 
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost said:
If I recall correctly, Trump's account has been back for some time now, Trump simply hasn't been using it until now. He's been posting over at Truth Social and there was some speculation that perhaps he had a contractual obligation to use that service rather than Twitter.
Click to expand...
Or maybe he was just being petulant.
 
arthwollipot said:
Or maybe he was just being petulant.
Click to expand...

Trump's a big enough name that really any social media site he posts on will get covered. Twitter needs Trump more than Trump needs Twitter (at least at this point, earlier on his Twitter posting was an important element of his PR).
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Partly because, despite Twitter being quite large and popular, it was never particularly profitable.

The silicon valley model of "grow now, monetize later" is all well and good until the investment money dries up.

it's not really surprising that none of these competitors are willing to do an exact clone of Twitter, but are instead trying to figure out a version of Twitter that is actually profitable.

All this brings you back to the point that Musk was an idiot to borrow a bunch of money buy Twitter and saddle the generally unprofitable company with huge amounts of debt. Even if he had never implemented any of his idiotic changes, the debt burden alone was likely unsustainable.
Click to expand...

Twitter made a profit in 2018 and 2019. ($1.2 billion on $3 billion revenue in 2018) It made a huge loss in 2020 (Pandemic year) but was on its way back to profitability until Musk took an interest.

The idea that Twitter was never really profitable is myth.
 
jeremyp said:
Twitter made a profit in 2018 and 2019. ($1.2 billion on $3 billion revenue in 2018) It made a huge loss in 2020 (Pandemic year) but was on its way back to profitability until Musk took an interest.

The idea that Twitter was never really profitable is myth.
Click to expand...

those were the only 2 years that were profitable. 2 years is hardly a pattern strong enough to assume future profitability. Twitter is extremely dependent on advertising to remain profitable, and any economic trend that results in reduced ad spending, either specifically on social media or more generally, kneecaps its profitability.

Musk's disastrous running of Twitter that makes it less appealing to advertisers is certainly not helping anything, but even run well Twitter is easily whipsawed around by the whims of advertisers.
 
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost said:
those were the only 2 years that were profitable. 2 years is hardly a pattern strong enough to assume future profitability.
Click to expand...
The last two years before the pandemic. They made a big loss in 2020 and a much smaller loss in 2021. 2022 would have been profitable without the Musk shenanigans. The pattern is obvious. Twitter was profitable excepting the pandemic.

Twitter is extremely dependent on advertising to remain profitable, and any economic trend that results in reduced ad spending, either specifically on social media or more generally, kneecaps its profitability.
Click to expand...

As is Meta, Google, Tik Tok and any other internet business that provides services for free in exchange for showing its users advertisements. We don't talk about advertisers kneecapping any of their profitability.

The fact is that you said that Twitter was never particularly profitable and that statement is false as demonstrated by huge profits made in two years running and an obvious trend to returning to profitability following a disastrous pandemic year.

I wouldn't normally make so much of a point like this but it's part of a false narrative that Musk is using to gaslight his followers into believing he is the saviour of the company.
 
jeremyp said:
The last two years before the pandemic. They made a big loss in 2020 and a much smaller loss in 2021. 2022 would have been profitable without the Musk shenanigans. The pattern is obvious. Twitter was profitable excepting the pandemic.



As is Meta, Google, Tik Tok and any other internet business that provides services for free in exchange for showing its users advertisements. We don't talk about advertisers kneecapping any of their profitability.

The fact is that you said that Twitter was never particularly profitable and that statement is false as demonstrated by huge profits made in two years running and an obvious trend to returning to profitability following a disastrous pandemic year.

I wouldn't normally make so much of a point like this but it's part of a false narrative that Musk is using to gaslight his followers into believing he is the saviour of the company.
Click to expand...

Really seems like you're assuming a lot based on 2 profitable years out of many unprofitable years. Maybe you think 2 years is an "obvious trend", but I'm not seeing it.

I'm not sure what you mean by bringing up Facebook. They have a very similar business model and are absolutely dependent on online ads to make money. Plenty has been written about how these other social media companies are in a mad scramble to attract the most advertising eyes.

I don't see how pointing out that Twitter is marginally profitable is a narrative that helps Musk. The fact that the company was generally not making money is a very good reason for him to not borrow a bunch of money to buy it. Throwing interest burden onto a company that clearly can't afford it doesn't make him seem very savvy. Musk bought a lemon and that makes him look like a chump, much to the benefit of the previous Twitter shareholders who got top dollar to exit a shaky business.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Really seems like you're assuming a lot based on 2 profitable years out of many unprofitable years. Maybe you think 2 years is an "obvious trend", but I'm not seeing it.
Click to expand...
The last two years out of the first eight.

I'm not sure what you mean by bringing up Facebook. They have a very similar business model and are absolutely dependent on online ads to make money. Plenty has been written about how these other social media companies are in a mad scramble to attract the most advertising eyes.
Click to expand...

Yes they are, but they are also extremely profitable in spite of being dependent on advertising. Google is extremely profitable in spite of being dependent on advertising.

I don't see how pointing out that Twitter is marginally profitable is a narrative that helps Musk. The fact that the company was generally not making money is a very good reason for him to not borrow a bunch of money to buy it. Throwing interest burden onto a company that clearly can't afford it doesn't make him seem very savvy. Musk bought a lemon and that makes him look like a chump, much to the benefit of the previous Twitter shareholders who got top dollar to exit a shaky business.
Click to expand...

I think the above proves my point. You think Musk bought a lemon, but he didn't buy a lemon, he made it a lemon.

Twitter was not marginally profitable, it was very profitable and then the pandemic happened. There's no reason to believe that it wouldn't have returned to being very profitable before Musk got involved.

Twitter will never be profitable now that it has to service a $13 billion debt but that is enteirely on Elon Musk.
 
jeremyp said:
The last two years out of the first eight.



Yes they are, but they are also extremely profitable in spite of being dependent on advertising. Google is extremely profitable in spite of being dependent on advertising.



I think the above proves my point. You think Musk bought a lemon, but he didn't buy a lemon, he made it a lemon.

Twitter was not marginally profitable, it was very profitable and then the pandemic happened. There's no reason to believe that it wouldn't have returned to being very profitable before Musk got involved.

Twitter will never be profitable now that it has to service a $13 billion debt but that is enteirely on Elon Musk.
Click to expand...

Twitter isn't Facebook. It was never as large and never took the Facebook approach of walling itself off with login requirements. Even still, Facebook experiences revenue volatility based on advertising trends.

Google isn't a social media company. It relies partially on advertising, but it's more a utility that sells ads than a social media service.

I guess it's an entirely speculative question whether or not Twitter would have returned to profitability, because Musk is running the company into the ground, both adding expenses through the gigantic debt and by killing profitability by driving off users and making the place radioactive for brand conscious advertisers.
 
Elon has announced video and voice calls are coming to Twitter/X.
No phone number needed, it will use Twitter ID within the app
 
angrysoba said:
Like Messenger?
Click to expand...

Or like the function that's already built into pretty much every smart phone that comes out on the market!

I'd think that the rampant racism and anti-semitism is more of a reason why people are leaving Twitter than not being able to make video calls.
 
plague311 said:
Or like the function that's already built into pretty much every smart phone that comes out on the market!

I'd think that the rampant racism and anti-semitism is more of a reason why people are leaving Twitter than not being able to make video calls.
Click to expand...

I actually deleted (deactivated) my own Twitter account yesterday.

But I am trying to figure out what this function is supposed to be.

Andy_Ross said:
Just what people need, random whackjobs on twitter calling them
Click to expand...

Is this what people will be able to do? Or will it only be available to, say, people who you follow pr allow to call in the same way that people can limit who can DM them, etc...?

But yeah, I can definitely see how that would be annoying if anyone at all can phone them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom