|
|
|
..Twitter?
Apparently, both Google and Facebook are in talks about the possibility of buying twitter. However, apparently they also aren't getting anywhere.
The valuation is being ball-parked between 8-10 billion.
This however brings up a fairly recent concern with companies "value" versus what their ACTUAL revenue is.
Is twitter actually worth 10 billion or are investors and businesses just going insane with big number fever?
|
|
k
|
|
|
|
|
Twitter is worth about $10,000 Maybe. You're an idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
i value twitter at 10$ and thats paying 9.99$ extra ROFL i dont see the point in it but not dissing anyone either here just personally i dont get it
|
|
|
|
|
i value twitter at 10$ and thats paying 9.99$ extra ROFL i dont see the point in it but not dissing anyone either here just personally i dont get it I personally despise twitter, despite that, I can still recognize that its value far exceeds my personal use for it. It's like valuing a smoothie shop at $1 because you don't drink smoothies, it doesn't mean it can't still turn a profit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I enjoy Twitter. I don't really tweet, but I follow a lot of people. People like Stephen Colbert, Jim Gaffigan, and Seth MacFarlane just don't turn off their funny factor. They have hilarious tweets and I love reading them when I'm bored.
|
|
|
|
|
It's like valuing a smoothie shop at $1 because you don't drink smoothies, it doesn't mean it can't still turn a profit. It is only worth what someone is willing to pay. which is apparently somewhere between 8-10 billion. Thanks for that.
|
|
k
|
|
|
|
|
It's like valuing a smoothie shop at $1 because you don't drink smoothies, it doesn't mean it can't still turn a profit. It is only worth what someone is willing to pay. Read what you wrote, again. "only worth what someone is willing to pay." Not you, but someone. That said, I could see Google paying north of $1 billion for Twitter, but not the full valuation. Not after they turned down Facebook for ~$4 million a few years ago at its full valuation (right before FB took over the world). The only reason Google would do it is to compete with FB, though, and get a leg up on Microsoft in the live search arena. I'm not sure it'd be worth it for Google to spend billions on that, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
question is, is it possible to make it profitable?
|
|
k
|
|
|
|
|
question is, is it possible to make it profitable? People asked the same thing when Google was just starting up. People asked the same thing when Google opened with a $100 per share IPO. People don't ask the same thing about Google anymore. The money Google would make through placing adwords on every Twitter page and possibly allowing advertisers to send out mass tweets (maybe a max of 1 per person, per day would be acceptable for everyone) would be substantial. Enough to recover $10 billion? If Twitter stayed relevant for 20 years, maybe. $1 billion? Yeah, they would recover that fairly quick. Just look at what Microsoft paid for the right to advertise on FB a few years ago and you'll see what I mean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
thing is, if they start loading it with ads, users would probably revolt.
|
|
k
|
|
|
|
|
thing is, if they start loading it with ads, users would probably revolt. FB moved to non-intrusive ads a few years ago (via Microsoft) and they didn't have a revolt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If they do, I agree that I can see it being very beneficial for Google, but I see Facebook doing it to integrate with and then eliminate the competition (i.e. Google buying YouTube with respect to Google Video.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
If they do, I agree that I can see it being very beneficial for Google, but I see Facebook doing it to integrate with and then eliminate the competition (i.e. Google buying YouTube with respect to Google Video.) I don't think either of them would rid the internet of Twitter or integrate their services, though. They might slap a "from Google/Facebook" suffix to the end of the logo on the mainpage, but nothing more. Twitter, honestly, has evolved beyond just sharing what you are up to (like Facebook) and connecting different streams of data (like Google) as it used to be. Now it's becoming more about relevancy, news, and telling the world things that otherwise would remain unheard. Facebook has no reason to buy the site other than to swallow the competition, as you said. They'd be far better off by making it possible to post status messages to the Stream and have a public side of Facebook as well as the current private side. I'm not sure how they could do it without making the private side irrelevant and causing yet another privacy war, but I think it is the way for them to go (rather than spend billions on Twitter)
|
|
|
