zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. Dylan1+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-12-16 03:03:20
> Beyond that, Twitter was absolutely struggling to monetize eyeballs.

It was struggling in the "big tech megaprofit" way, not in the "pay for the servers" way.

replies(1): >>inferi+01
◧
2. inferi+01[view] [source] 2022-12-16 03:09:05
>>Dylan1+(OP)
Twitter was profitable for, what, a single quarter in 2019? That's not sustainable. But yeah we're talking years before a major cash crunch not weeks. Elno accelerated that timeline pretty dramatically.
replies(1): >>Dylan1+Os
◧◩
3. Dylan1+Os[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 06:15:00
>>inferi+01
Their revenue was growing at a pretty good pace and as of 2021 it only needed a few more percent to meet costs.
replies(1): >>inferi+oG
◧◩◪
4. inferi+oG[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 07:50:05
>>Dylan1+Os
If pigs had wings they could fly, but they don't so they can't. Almost profitable is not actually profitable, and Twitter was profitable for a brief moment in time with no indication that it was or would be sustainable.
replies(1): >>Dylan1+CI
◧◩◪◨
5. Dylan1+CI[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 08:11:45
>>inferi+oG
I don't think "keep that trend for six more months and then everything is good" is pigs flying.
[go to top]