Apple in talks to buy Twitter for $700m | Hacker News Reader

Apple in talks to buy Twitter for $700m

telegraph.co.uk

42 pointswheels38 comments

Digital media blogs, TechCrunch and Valleywag, both claim to have access to an inside source at Apple who believes the deal is already at the late stages of negotiation, with the hope of completion by June 8.

This is very partial reporting. The TechCrunch article went out of its way to point out that the rumours didn't check out with other sources.

So, effectively, despite the otherwise reputable source, it seems to me that this article is just echoing the same rumour around without adding anything to the discussion...

Just fished out the link there:

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/05/twitter-mania-google-go...

The British press is well-known for overhyping stories in this way.

Really? I didn't know that about them.

Man, I love Silicon Valley.

Where else in the world will you hear about $700M acquisitions of a company that is generating no revenue?

I highly doubt this is real - and if it were I'd be extremely disappointed in Apple. $700M is better invested in a lot of technology that will get them real gains, as opposed to buying a service that is neither profitable nor in possession of any technology that can't be replicated in-house for cheaper.

So at best they're buying the brand - which is still nothing near household, and I would argue worth a lot less than the quoted price tag.

I mostly agree with you, but Twitter has become a household name. CNN, FOX, and all the other news shows just love to toss in a comment about Twitter when it's even slightly relevant.

Apple is a household name.

Not to mention The White House, the CDC, etc.

You know what else is a household name? Hitler.

A UK newspaper website?

But seriously, if the company is making no revenue, that sum is just for the user base. So how much does that make the value of every user? (does anyone have a current user count for twitter? I could only find figures from February but I imagine its much higher now.)

They have around 25m users according to TC. that makes it about $28 per user. Which is alright, I have seen higher numbers per user.

Are those active? I've heard a lot of Twitter's "users" sign up but aren't posting.

Also some people create 650 accounts ;)

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=592438

The telegraph is very credible in my book but this story is so difficult to believe. Too random and nonsensical.

Seems that "%s will buy Twitter for $%d00m!" stories have already generated more collective revenue (for news sites etc) than Twitter itself ever had.

Last time I checked, Apple's a "device" company (used to be a hardware company, still selling stuff). How will owning Twitter result in more sales of iPhones, iPods and/or Macs? If you can answer this question, then the rumor has legs. Otherwise, what's in it for Apple?

Does Twitter have some IP protection preventing somebody coming along and doing it again? If not, I can't see Apple buying a brand-name.

Just because they sell devices now, does not mean they can't or won't start selling other stuff such as services (they already provide iTunes which is more of a service). Also they used to be a Computer company which turned in to a Devices + Computer. Their just spreading their wings a bit further.

Regarding your comment about IP, I doubt they do have any kind of protection, I mean their technology is trivial at best. But the value of Twitter lies within it's user base and adoption level, that momentum is hard to beat.

I am not a big fan of Twitter or Apple, but I can definitely see a interesting potential with the two combined (imagine integrated twitter in ipod and other wireless devices). iTweet?

There is a difference between applying your core competencies to different markets, and just expanding. Apple has been good at limiting their growth to the former. When they do expand into unfamiliar areas (like with iTunes), they make sure they contribute to the bottom line (through increased iPod/iPhone sales).

There are already good Twitter applications for both the Mac and the iPhone. Apple gains nothing, and loses $700 million.

I like Kara Swisher's take on these latest rumors, namely that they are full of it: http://kara.allthingsd.com/20090505/ignore-the-twitter-buyou...

I mean, when is Valleywag going to stop printing variations of the "X is in late stage talks to buy Twitter" story?

Valleywag going to stop printing variations

When they cease to generate links, buzz, and pageviews.

I note that this story is currently #1 on a social news site for fairly discerning people...

Great Silicon Valley Echo Chamber in action.

Steve, come back quick! Your company is going crazy -- _again_!

This would be a brilliant move. Apple is flush with cash so 700m is cake. The will come out with a new twitter client that pushes GPS, photo/video support, and long form tweets over 3G.

Once this happens they can identify news events in real-time. A surge in tweets from a local area dynamically creates news stories. Accident on the 101? I get photos and video within minutes. The ultimate glocalized news service.

Apple ran over top of the established music industry and they are about to do it the news too.

If this goes through go crazy on AAPL.

I really don't understand what value people see in Twitter as a news service. Do I really need to find out about something right when it happens as opposed to 5-10 minutes later? How can I even find out about things without wading through tons of crap? I doubt that the frequency of messages from a certain area would accurately surface events of note. Processing the text of the messages could help, but it still wouldn't be a service anyone would want. I bet there are surges of tweets for all sorts of random stuff that no one cares about, so if they're sending me a text whenever there's a surge, I'm going to end up turning it off pretty quick.

Editors are valuable. Gaining a five minute head start on news is next to worthless, and the signal to noise ratio will make it far worse than just signing up for breaking news text messages from an actual news source. How many people even sign up for those now?

If 140 character messages from random geeks off the street ever supplant other news sources, I will eat my phone.

I think it's all in the algorithm and software implementation. Maybe you use #news, or maybe you implement a voting system, maybe there is some kind of revenue sharing or identity/trust model.. something... Realtime photo/video/text is where it's going, the question is how we get there. You're right that it's scary if that is our only news source, but that doesn't mean "real journalists" won't come in and back-fill relevant events with more details. How the heck they will make money is the big question to me.

Photos and videos of events before news crews get there are definitely very valuable. Getting those things in real time isn't very valuable in my opinion.

After all these years of spam filter development, I still get spam regularly. I don't think there's a way to deliver news from Twitter to people in real time with more accuracy than spam filters, and that would be annoying. Again, I don't think that many people use the breaking news text messaging services that already exist and are curated by human beings.

The Twitter messages and pictures when the plane landed in the Hudson River were awesome. I didn't care that I only saw them hours after the fact. I don't think anyone else cared either. It might have been nice to get them in real time, but not at the cost of noise. Noise is impossible to reduce to a manageable level when you're text messaging people because it interrupts whatever they're doing. You could send emails instead, but then you either are still interrupting people who check their email constantly, or you're losing the real time aspect.

Given Apple's previous experiences with online services such as .Mac and MobileMe, one has to wonder why Apple shareholders would consider this a wise investment.

One possibility is that this would contribute towards Apple's latest moves to position itself as more of lifestyle company as opposed to a hardware/computer company. Twitter would really strengthen them in that sense, since it's so highly visible right now.

If Apple or any other company wanted to use Twitter, why not create free accounts or pay Twitter for advertising like anyone else could without first spending $700,000,000.00?

I don't understand these "acquisitions" from a business perspective other than as an excuse to legally shuffle money from a big company to mutual investors and executives. Am I missing something?

Yes you are. Once Twitter has a business plan in place (which they do supposedly but just not executed) they stand to possibly take a cut of every one of their client's profits (depending on the model of course). On top of that, they could still use it like everyone else of course.

Having said that... this all feels like a really lame April Fool's joke. Am I alone here?

Once Twitter has a business plan in place (which they do supposedly but just not executed) they stand to possibly take a cut of every one of their client's profits (depending on the model of course).

No tangible goods. What to profit on? Secret business plan that earns money from every one of their clients' eyeballs? Statement is vacuous.

Agreed. I would rather wait it out and see what exactly makes Twitter worth $25+/user. Unless some obscure Apple genius has the white matter to figure out how to better use Twitter.

No, they aren't.

Can you explain why you say that? Are you in a position to know or do you just think it unlikely?

Haven't we learned to take Apple rumors with a grain of salt by now?

Whatever the deal I am ready for some kind of renewal and excitement in the tech scene. Too many economic sob stories for over a year now.

Why the hell?

Read my lips:

Apple does NOT need twitter.

This is a fake story to put a reference value for twitter in our heads.

In my opinion, twitter is not worth more than 100M.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com