You might be copping downvotes because people think your arguments that he's "not very capable" and "is bad at business execution" don't hold up?
A more transparent post would have said something like "Based on my world view, assumptions, and preconceptions, he's bad at business. The common narrative of Dorsey is XYZ. Here's why that's wrong."
Saying "it's obvious" when you're expressing an uncommon opinion doesn't set a good tone for a discussion. Makes it seem like "I'm smart they're dumb I don't need to explain my statement that runs counter to conventional wisdom".
* Not saying it's right, just that this is what the Twitter board / media / insiders / VCs /etc. seem to think.
Just thinking I can downvote and not respond because of the "obvious" problems of the statement is just as bad as your example of saying "it's obvious" about an uncommon opinion is not good for discussion. You're just telling me "it's obvious" why the other guy's "it's obvious" is wrong.
There really wasn't an argument put forth beyond "he's bad at business, can't you see it's obvious". His tone and lack of content other than an unsubstantiated opinion are why there was no interesting discussion.
I never said "it's obvious" in any way shape or form, but I do believe this is my stop. Have a nice day.
It was not unsubstantiated. If I define a good business as a business with profits, this definition has a lot of substance. Jack Dorsey obviously achieved a lot of personal success and money from Twitter, I am not blind about his amazing achievements. Amazing because they are statistically difficult to obtain at this scale. BUT, being a public company is a different stage of the game. As an startup you can be amazing while the finances are hidden but when you are public you need to build a sustainable business and this is not happening.
With a product so boring (IMO) that the only two interesting things about it (again IMO) are the massive hype and the resulting massive scale, just keeping the hype machine running is quite a feat IMO ;-)
(Yeah, when I first saw it I saw massive potential: kind of a giant global event/message bus with a mix of more or less personal text messages, machine2machine communications etc etc. I thought the first thing they would do would be adding channels so you could separate various topics, paid subscriptions for internal company discussions etc etc. Instead they doubled down on efficient distribution of spam and drivel :-/)
100% agree but now the company is in another stage, it is a public company and it is scrutinized with different standards.