One can view the Twitter business in multiple ways.
If one sees Twitter as a technology platform that builds on what IRC/XMPP did before, the Disney connection makes zero sense. (E.g. Disney is not a tech company and they wouldn't be the kind of company that would bring back a developer API.)
However, one can also see Twitter as a media entertainment business and the technology platform behind the scenes as an irrelevant detail. Disney does already own the ABC Broadcasting network and ESPN.
Looking at Twitter via the lense of "media outlet" isn't that strange if you look at the top-100 Twitter profiles:
http://twittercounter.com/pages/100
One will notice it's mostly entertainment celebrities including singers Katy Perry (93M), Justin Bieber (88M), Taylor Swift (81M), etc. The list also includes media channels such as Youtube, CNN, ESPN, BBC, etc.
Sure, many people have touted the social ideals of Twitter and its empowerment of user-driven bottom-up journalism. It's a "global consciousness" for news. However, it's interesting to note the relatively low number of followers for famous journalists compared to the entertainment celebrities: Christiane Amanpour (1.8M), Louis Theroux (1.5M), Glenn Greenwald (743k), Malcolm Gladwell (422k), Bob Woodward (15.9k), etc.
If you see Twitter as a media/broadcast business, an acquisition by Google/Apple doesn't make any sense.
If you see Twitter as a technology platform to sell more digital ads, an acquisition by Disney makes no sense.
All that said, we've seen one media company (Rupert Murdoch) buy a web company (MySpace) and that didn't turn out so well for a variety of reasons.
When you buy the record label that Katy Perry has a deal with, you're buying it because Katy Perry has a deal in place to make N more records for that label.
When you buy Twitter because Katy Perry is on it, you're not getting anything. She could shut down her Twitter tomorrow and tell all her followers she's only on Instagram.
https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ATWTR&fstype=ii&ei=l2...
From the other side they can cheaply cross promote Twitter from all those media companies. Disney has long been about about merchandising not just entertainment, and they are a surprisingly innovative tech focused company.
Arguably, they could get most of this from the data feed for minimal outlay, but owning twitter let's them develop the kind of tools useful for themselves. So, think faster AB testing for commercials not just cash. Much like how Pixar does a lot of software development even though they make money from movies.
There is increasing crossover with Star Wars, and Pixar. However, they both started off independent so have strong brand identity on their own.
PS: The only really unifying concept with Disney is entertainment and abusing IP laws to squeeze ever more money from ever blander content.
Same here. There are a few companies that I could see a good fit with Twitter, but definitely not Disney.
Facebook is an option as their mission is to connect everyone in the world, and Twitter still works via SMS for the billions of people using non-smart mobile devices.
Google wants a social media platform with significant reach (Google+ is still struggling), and I could see Twitter integrating well with some of its other sites like Youtube.
Verizon has been able to squeeze money out of AOL, and currently plans to do the same with Yahoo. Maybe they could figure out a model for Twitter, but it seems like a bit of a stretch.
Apple dabbled in the social media sphere with Ping, and they have built-in authentication with Twitter. It seems unlikely they could ever make money off Twitter, but it seems like the sort of thing they might be willing to waste money on.
Twitter isn't a media company. They don't sell media, and in fact they don't sell enough of anything to make a profit.
ABC and ESPN (which Disney also owns) has studios and makes their own content; they're not merely distribution channels. Twitter, on the other hand, creates no content of its own.
Surely, but what cyanbane said was that Disney is not this driver.
Yes, one prints money the other doesn't even know how and what to monetize
> Twitter has tremendous value
How do you define value?
They are different business models in the sense that Disney has a business model and Twitter doesn't.
> Twitter has tremendous value and with the right product changes, some rollbacks, I think it can become very powerful and in as much widespread use as Facebook, etc. The problem is is getting someone in the driver's seat who understands what Twitter's place (differentiation, offering) is and then getting that driving.
The problem isn't anything so vague. The problem is that Twitter hasn't ever made a profit and a this point probably won't ever make a profit. And I suspect that this refutes your assertion that "Twitter has tremendous value".