Big signals that Musk made a lot of mistakes with twitter if Meta scrambled to ship a competitor like this. I don’t use Twitter so I won’t use this either but it’ll be interesting to see if the instagram folks can take this market from twitter.
But hooooly crap does it underscore how much of a catastrophe Musk’s actions are.
He bought it for ~40% more than it was valued and then scared away a lot of advertisers. That does not make financial sense, and is in large part the root of Twitter/his money problems.
Most estimates put it at ~25% of the value he paid 7 months ago.
All the debt you mention? He saddled them with that. That was t there until he came along. Another failure.
About the only positive financial thing you can say he did is cut payroll costs. Unfortunately he did that at the expense of site stability & reliability.
It will be studied in MBA programs as an example of what NOT to do
Income doesn't matter if you're not profitable.
>All the debt you mention? He saddled them with that.
No, Twitter was already in debt. The alternative was letting it die, which mind you I don't think would have been a bad idea, but if Musk's goal is to keep it alive then the huge amounts of debt would certainly do that.
>Unfortunately he did that at the expense of site stability & reliability.
The site did not have the efficiency or importance to warrant the number of employees it had.
Twitter had around 5.5 billion in debt prior to the buyout. Elon added approximately 13 billion to that.
No rational person would look at his actions and claim they "[made] a lot of financial sense".
He bought the company because he was mad they banned a hate speech account he thought was funny, unbanned them and brought all the other racists back to juice the numbers and so he could reply-guy them, and instantly lost all the advertisers because they don't want to be associated with statue avatar Nazis. That was not good business sense.
sure it's not like several banks have collapsed or anything...
>That was not good business sense.
I'm not in favor of letting nazis on platforms, but having your business decisions be beholden to advertisers is always a disaster in the making.
That's too bad for the shareholders of the banks but it doesn't matter for anyone else.
But on top of cutting costs, Musk has also made terrible product and communication decisions that killed significant amounts of revenue and audience.
I think that pretty much nails it. This is Zuckerberg's life - social media & nearby segments - and he's still in his prime (very active, attentive to threats / paranoid) as a competitor in the business sphere. If you give him an opening to cripple Twitter opportunistically, he's going to take a shot.
Did Musk think Twitter actually had a moat (thus he didn't have to be overly concerned with his actions promptly sinking the ship)? It would be hilariously delusional if so.
It kind of did, just by network effects, but he’s spent the last 6+ months systematically filling it in. This last weekend might be the walls crumbling down
Now that that’s over it can’t meet the needs of services like my local power company pushing updates.
Of course it had a moat, wow.
Yes, first mover advantage. I don't think normal non-technically inclined people are going to move their twitter activities to "Threads".
Normal, non-technical users (including the key ones that produce a lot of content that other people come for) are often already on Instagram, and many are moving more of their presence their recently even without a Twitter-like UI in response to changes on Twitter. So, that’s something Meta can leverage to build Threads if they manage it well.
I don’t think he cared [0], because he’s always wanted to gut Twitter and remake it as a a very different service that is not really in the same market (very different substantive functions and revenue model.)
On the other hand he seems to have very not-evidence-based and turns-out-to-be-wrong-at-every-step map of how to get from a ad-supported microblogging platform to a user-pays long-form-content-and-financial-services platform.
[0] It did, through network effexts, but his plans were incompatible with focussing on preserving it.
since before the acquisition closed? i thought i heard somewhere they started working on this january-ish.
More like the 'fediverse' is scrambling [0] to block Threads before it has even launched.
Now call me crazy but I disagree. I think - or rather I feel - he's doing an excelent job somehow. He's doing what other executives are afraid to do: he's building and building requires some walls to be hammered down ; and yeah this makes some noise and smoke. He's moving fast and breaking things (if you'd excuse the easy punt). To me, what he's doing is exciting and I think twitter is gonna thrive once the big work is done.
How so? You're blaming the user for a feature that the user didn't design.
If the commenter complained about their own chronological Followed feed, that would be a "you problem".
The current one is half trying to be the new Reddit account experience and half trying to show you politics news you'll get mad about for engagement.
So who on earth would be irresponsible enough to trust Twitter with anything essential or important after this? Who is going to build a storefront on a platform where they might wake up one day and find out that all of their customers are rate-limited from using the platform? And then the CEO jokes that he's doing people a favor by making them touch grass?
A bunch of artists who had (shortsightedly) built their business models around using Twitter as an art platform woke up one day to find out that their artwork can no longer be embedded in other websites. A bunch of government agencies and public services just found out that "check our Twitter for updates" no longer works. With no warning and with no announcement, all because Elon is mad that OpenAI hasn't cut him a check.
That is a business-destroying decision. Other executives are afraid of doing this because it's the kind of thing that permanently hinders your platform from ever being treated like a reliable place to do business or build on top of. It puts a mark on your businesses reputation that will never go away. And it's not a tech issue, it's a trust issue. Finish the big work and make something exciting, sure, but nobody with an ounce of sense would ever trust Elon not to pull the rug out from under them now.
You're going to build a business on a platform that might randomly decide to effectively shut itself down on a whim? Imagine if you had an Amazon shop and Amazon decided tomorrow with no warning that every customer on the platform is limited to buying at most one item per day, and also external links to Amazon no longer work for guest checkout unless your customer makes an account. How are people defending this? It makes no sense.
Which is a bad idea. China has everything apps like WeChat because monopolies are easier to regulate, but customers don't actually like them, which is why we don't have them elsewhere.
1. Make p2p payments
2. Pay utility bills
3. Pay credit card charges
4. Buy insurance
5. Get loans
6. Make charitable donations
7. Book travel tickets
8. Find nearby stores, store timings, get directions, and see their ratings
9. Send and receive short messages
Unless “we” and “elsewhere” doesn’t include India, I’d say superapps are more common than you think.
These payment apps integrate with a much wider arrays of backends from multiple providers and allow you perform many more unique use cases. E.g., making charitable donations and paying an insurance premium are unrelated but the Indian payment app I’m thinking of enables it.
This brings it closer to being an “everything” app.
Every single change he has made to Twitter is exclusively to claw back income from users because he made all of the advertisers leave. Anyone competent would have just added the features they wanted without burning 80% of the company's income and staff.
I kid you not: I recently saw a screenshot of a post by an engineer asking ex-Twitter engineers for help debugging an issue.. on Blind. Mind you, I don’t blame the engineer at all: it just gives you an idea of the mess Musk has made for himself.
I think the fact that the platform is still running is a testament to those who built & documented the infra. It’s also a feather on the cap for those who remain to man the ship, particularly if there was no other choice.
One catastrophic outage is all it really takes at this point.
I haven't seen any actions where he has prevented people from discussions on the platform within the laws of the United States.
It's okay to support someone, but at least do it without filtering out everything that doesn't fit your narrative.
If someone is one of the most highly influential people on the planet managing gigantic marketcap companies like Tesla/Spacex, It makes sense from a personal safety standpoint not to dox their location each time they travel. Doxing people fits whose narrative again? I'm not convinced thats a 'narrative'.
Banning links to substack was temporary. Substack released a competitor and was scraping their contact data. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/apr/11/row-between-tw.... How would you handle the situation where you have a company losing money and competitors are sucking your data dry?
But either way, that's not a reason to block links, and them being a competitor is not a reason to block links.
Its naive that people sit on the sidelines opining they should've done the opposite when all the evidence points to blocking scraping as a standard business practice (and scraping is illegal if the company forbids it in their policy). Most people saying otherwise have not run a company or startup in a competitive environment where every other player wants to steal their lunch.
If a user signs up somewhere else, and wants their data to be ported over, there is very little to legitimately complain about. Even more so when the scraping is just contact data for that user, because that's very little server load.
Go away with this "steal their lunch" stuff. It should be legally mandated that users can transfer contacts between services.
Also blocking API access is very different from blocking user-posted links.
2. Flight data is public, no one is doxing anyone. The incident Musk used as proof that this was bad was while he was in a car... far from his plane.
3. Twitter banned Mastodon links before Substack. Was Mastodon scraping Twitter's contact data too?
You see, the problem is not even what he's doing with Twitter. It's his company, who cares? It's claiming that Twitter is the internet's "town square" and that he is anti-censorship, while restricting access to the platform and censoring content. It's complete bullshit and people like you fall for it and even defend it.
I'd respect Elon Musk more if he came out and just said "this is my platform, I'll ban stuff that affects me or affects my revenue, get out if you're not happy." Instead, he says one thing and does another.
Jack was a bad CEO because he's even more gullible than Elon and fried his brain with psychedelics, but he's not as bad as the current one.