Elon was kept only because he didn't give away founder control. At the end outside MBAs always try to take over and destroy the companies.
I take back my comment, 16% is awful.
The 3x growth is only because they finally figured out monetization 7-8 years post ipo and rode the rising Ad wave that lifted all CPMs across Snapchat and TradeDesk.
Overall, pretty subpar stock and pretty grim outlook.
Non-tech people sometimes ask me whether they should get on Twitter. I ask them why they might want it, and very often my answer is, "No, don't worry about it." And that's coming from somebody who uses Twitter enough to have two separate accounts plus a Twitter bot (sfships).
Twitter, like HN, is a niche social network. [1] Twitter's niche is much larger, of course. But I don't think it makes much sense to compare it to FB, whose target market is "anybody with friends or relatives".
[1] Technically, I'd call it a multi-niche network, in that it gets the most publicly active segment of people in a whole bunch of social groups. For example, tech people is has are the sort most likely to write books and articles, speak at/go to conferences, etc. But if you're the sort of workaday programmer who punches a clock at a bank and pays no attention to the industry, Twitter doesn't do much for you.
I’ll actually challenge you on the niche point. Twitter is niche because they completely failed to elevate the product experience to the masses. Mark was able to bring Facebook beyond a college network, Spiegel built snap beyond teens and texting, but Twitter continually fails for the average mom and pop. Every single piece of user research and UX audit finds Twitter to be very confusing for new users.
So Twitter being niche isn’t a victory. It’s an admission of defeat a la segways
But I'm not getting what you think "Twitter for the masses" should be. The current value prop is something like, "globe-spanning discussion around hot topics". Fewer people care about that than "keep in contact with family and friends" or "look at pretty pictures". I don't see a mom-and-pop version of Twitter in the same way that I don't see a mom-and-pop version of the WSJ or the NYT. The mom-and-pop version of the NYT is perhaps USA Today, but that's not an expanded product, just a different one.
Gotcha, honestly what I meant by mom-and-pop, I was thinking of growing Twitter just beyond the power user. Similar to you, I don’t believe twitter’s addressable market is as big as Facebook’s. If Facebook’s TAM is N, twitter’s is n where n<N. My main issue with them is that they’re actually 3/5ths of that n. I genuinely think they have an opportunity to make the product more accessible but they really have been not good :(. And I say this as a big Twitter fan!
If only the UI let you do things like follow a thread, set up proper notifications, and made at least some attempt at filtering out the spammer/scam replies.
And I think you're being unfair about the spam/scam replies. Twitter has made great improvement there in terms of downranking/hiding junk replies. It'll never be perfect, but it's at the very least much better than it was. I have to go a long way down in most threads I look at to see that stuff if it appears at all.
My favorite example is when Twitter said “hey guys, growing users is hard. You know what our North Star from now on is? Monetizable Daily Active Users”
Imagine a social network deciding it’s entire North Star is ad dollars. Pretty damning.
Seems to me that everything good about the product was present pre-IPO and it has only gotten worse over the years. I still use it but I find the interface/functionality strictly less pleasant with each design change.
The growth discrepancy has a lot to do with FBs innovation on the tracking component of things - advertising is what drives profit for these companies.
Facebook grew not because of Ad Dollars. It grew because it built an all-star product experience for consumers. It’s easy now to look at Facebook and think of its as Fait Accompli. But when Facebook came about, they arrived in the second renaissance of social networking. You had so many competitors right from incumbents like MySpace and right to upstarts like Friendster, Friednfeed. Literally then no one could predict who would win.
Facebook’s relentless product building made big enough to earn the problems of scale. Remember, when Facebook IPO’d it literally had a blip of ads business.
Both things can be true. But what I’m saying is, Facebook absolutely lights out built an incredible product experience and moat.
Now, they’re finally dealing with problems of scale. Which honestly aren’t due to bumbling per se, but really just come with the territory. Twitter haven’t even gotten their cowboy pants on
Hyperbole. De-risk companies is the right word, MBAs unlike wide eyed founders understand that odds are against companies and survival is the priority.
They understand that a company like Yahoo! which in 20 years produced lots of value for shareholders, customers, users and employed so many people...that's a happy story.
People on HN see Yahoo! and think "failure", that's the same as saying Derrick Rose is a failure for not being Lebron, well if that's the case where's your 100M net worth for playing basketball?
Yup. Many once great companies, for one reason or the other, believes they have to at some point bring these people in. Who then of course bring more in, who bring more in, etc. And the people that built the company from nothing to something huge are slowly runout and all the leaders from engineer and technology backgrounds are replaced by the "business people". And the culture dies as the company becomes one of abstract "deals" and "efficiencies" and growth stops and it is sold off.
Far, far more companies have been destroyed by cluesless founders than MBAs, and I don't think it's close.