Twitter Co-Founder Biz Stone Is Returning to the Company (techcrunch.com) 35
After leaving Twitter in 2011 to pursue new projects, Twitter co-founder Biz Stone has announced that he's returning to the company to "guide company culture." Stone said in a statement: "It's important that everyone understands the whole story of Twitter and each of our roles in that story. I'll shape the experience internally so it's also felt outside the company." TechCrunch reports: About a month ago Stone sold his most recent startup, Jelly, to Pinterest. He said at the time that he wasn't required to stay on with Pinterest, so was available for new opportunities. Stone said he was recently back at Twitter as a "special guest" for an event open to employees, where current CEO and fellow co-founder Jack Dorsey -- another founder who left and then returned -- asked him onstage if he wanted to come back and work at Twitter. After some employee cheers, and a private clarification that Jack was in fact being serious, he accepted. Twitter diehards are reacting positively to the news -- many think that Twitter needs to get back to its roots, and what better way to do it than bringing back a co-founder? The market also seems to be happy. TWTR stock immediately jumped 2 percent on the news, reaching a three-month high of $19.62.
Twitter is in a death-spiral, yawn (Score:5, Interesting)
To Twitter that's a big deal :-) The company is on a death spiral so any hint of life is probably a good thing to the SJW die-hards that still use the thing.
Re: (Score:1)
probably a good thing to the SJW die-hards that still use the thing.
Weird way to refer to the mango-in-chief.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wrong. They do make money, just not a lot compared to their market cap. They have a revenue of about $2.5 billions per year and profit of about $100 millions.
It's tiny compared to the other tech companies, but it's still roughly $3.1 billlions more profit than Uber, or $600 millions more than Snapchat.
Also now that they gave up on being a "share your feelings" platform and want to focus more on news delivery, and with the various new services they plan on adding (like premium services to let people monitor
Re: (Score:2)
at that rate, it would pay back the investment in like.. 15 years?
also that could just be messing with the books.
the thing is, for some reason. running their servers and staff is so fucking expensive it doesn't make any goddamn sense(and never made).
their previous corporate culture was to burn all investor money and well.. if they are returning to that.. gawds.
Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
at that rate, it would pay back the investment in like.. 15 years?
There's nothing to pay back. Here's how the system works:
1) the VC firms put in a few dollars (in the case of Twitter, about $1.5 billions over 4 years)
2) the company burns through it to build a customer base and create some hype, leading to unrealistic valuation
3) the company goes public without having made a profit yet, and rakes in a fortune (in the case of Twitter, about $24 billions)
4) the VC and founders make a killing, everyone else (i.e. employees) gets fucked because they can't cash in their stock options for a year or two and by then it's worth nothing
That's how the game is played; everyone bets that some other idiots down the road will pay more but at one point someone is left holding the bag.
In the case of Twitter, all of this is over.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Your figures don't match reality. For 2016 Twitter had a net income of around -$450 million. Where did you get this nonsense of making $100 million in profit?
Re: (Score:3)
He used liberal facts.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that P/E ratio is a key measure of how successful a business is at making more money than it's spending. Twitter does not have a P/E because it's negative (ie, they're losing money). And they've been that way for a very long time (I think, actually, forever).
So, the only way anyone ever made money out of
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you buy into the efficient market theory, or unless you look at numbers over a very long period, you can't really use any formula that includes the stock price when you want to know how successful a company is. The stock market can just go crazy and prices can go insanely high. For instance, LinkedIn once had a 1,000 P/E ratio, while Google ratio was 30.
Re: (Score:3)
Other than this story, the only time you hear about Twitter is in regard to Trump.
Yes. President Tweety. "I taht I taw a puddy cat! Or I wouldn't have I grabbed it."
That proves Twitter is useless to thinking people. Thinking people care more about the world than they do making America even better.
It could be that thinking people are not now, or were questionably ever, in the majority.
Biz Stone? (Score:2)
"Back to their Roots" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
You think the politically correct crowd will cede control? They'll just strangle harder. It's why they took up these positions of influence: to control others.
If something dies due to their meddling they just move on. Worst case to them, at least they've destroyed a bastion of wrongthink.
Re: (Score:1)
No. Twitter made $100m profit last year, which is over $100m more than 4chan and 8chan combined. So they are unlikely to swap their profitable business model for one which loses money, even with porn ads and malvertising.
Re: (Score:3)
No. Twitter made $100m profit last year, which is over $100m more than 4chan and 8chan combined. So they are unlikely to swap their profitable business model for one which loses money, even with porn ads and malvertising.
Unless I'm misreading, Twitter made an operating loss of $367m [nasdaq.com] last year.
Re: (Score:1)
Your link says £367m operating income, i.e. they made money, not lost it. I was actually wrong too, they made more than $100m.
What came after Biz Stone took off... (Score:2)