Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Nearly Added Twitter To Friends List
nandemoari writes "It seems the world's most popular social networking site was just moments away from acquiring another — and few of us ever knew about it. A Facebook executive has revealed that a planned takeover of Twitter only fell apart because of a disagreement over stock valuations.
Despite the rather miserable economy, Facebook is still looking to buy out other firms and says it could make a billion dollars a year from advertising.
Peter Thiel, a venture capitalist who put up some of the money behind Facebook, discussed the deal in a Business Week interview.
Thiel says the two sides agreed a $500 million purchase price and that Twitter would receive the payment in Facebook stock rather than cash — which is a common solution in large takeovers where there simply isn't the money available for a buyout."
Go on then.
I could say I can make eleventy dollars a furlong from my blog; that doesn't make it true. Only a dribbling moron would base a business decision (such as exchanging their website for stock) on such a claim.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Everyone is so hot for Facebook these days, but a year or two ago it was all anyone could do to not jizz themselves over MySpace. These things come and go, websites get hot, then fade away.
I just got a message from MSN groups that some group I had subscribed to a few years ago was going to be deleted. No big deal, I've moved on and found other places where I can post intelligent comments and engage in lively banter.
There is so little that is static about the Web. Facebook is right to strike now and make as much money as they can while the sun shines, because a year or two from now they will be a bad memory.
No matter how trivial and useless it may be, a lot people use the site. If a lot of people use the site, corporations want to advertise there. Thus the money thing....
Tweeter or Shiver or whatever the hell that inane "Now I'm on the bus and it's raining" service is called...
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Okay, first a disclaimer: I'm not a marketing expert with five hundred years experience and zero percent APR. I am a graphic designer, however. Here's the thing about advertising revenue. There's payment for the ad to be displayed, and there's a return on investment. The cost to run an advertising campaign can be from a few hundred dollars to ten million dollars, depending on medium, placement, demographic, etc. And almost always, the revenue stream does grow from a well-done marketing campaign. But there is never a way to prove causation. That is to say, an external factor could have accounted for all the extra business that cannot be accounted for. There is not, and never has been, a direct link between advertising and improved revenue. Of course, there will be people who try to tell you otherwise -- and it's conventional wisdom that it does help. What nobody can predict though is impact. I can't say with a much confidence that if I invest 1 million dollars in a marketing campaign I will see a 3 million dollar increase in gross revenues over the next 12 months. Improve, yes, how much -- who knows.
My point is this -- nobody who knows what they're talking about will quote numbers, not this way at any rate. A billion dollars is a pipe dream.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
...Twitter would receive the payment in Facebook stock rather than cash -- which is a common solution in large takeovers where there simply isn't any intrinsic value in either company
There, fixed that for you
Last time I checked, Twitter was free to use and does not have advertising. In other words, its income cannot be anything more than a trivial amount. It's true value is probably a lot closer to $0 than to $500 million.
This is how the dot.com boom of the 90's happened. Users != revenue or profitability.
90% of the peopel that use twitter never go to the site they use the API to post and read the messages through an application.
Any ad's would not be seen unless they start figuring they will simply spam all the users as ad tweets.
The next day twitter will have no users.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/why-twitter-turned-down-facebook/
Who would want facebook stock? It's like being bought with sub-prime mortgages as the payment. "They're worth it, I swear!"
For context, click Parent.
hey, did you know they beam radio and television signals out in the air for free?
and its an profitable venture
twitter, as a new kind of media, is simply in the stages of establishing itself
google also was heavily used and made no revenue for a long time
once a media's userbase is large and stable enough, advertising can be injected, and lots of cash can be made
the media business is not like manufacturing, like making and selling cupcakes, where you spend a little money and immediately get a little money back
its more like mining gold: you have a huge upfront investment in infrastructure, but then, over time, the initial investment begins to pay off, in dribs and drabs at first, but then to an increasingly louder roar, for a very long time
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Go on then.
I could say I can make eleventy dollars a furlong from my blog; that doesn't make it true. Only a dribbling moron would base a business decision (such as exchanging their website for stock) on such a claim.
Twitter doesn't know how to make money either. Twitter's best hope is to be bought by some other company so the owners can cash out. Of course, if they're bought by someone who only makes "theoretical" money like Facebook, and only paid in stock, they won't be any better off. However, if they never get bought out by anyone, their theoretical billions of dollars will never materialize into real money, because their service is very difficult to monetize.
Facebook is at least still mostly accessed via web browser, so there's the opportunity for ad revenue there. Twitter, on the other hand, is mostly accessed via small mobile phone apps, where it's much more difficult to advertise without causing the users so much pain that they end up dropping the service.
A website with millions of daily visitors has some non-zero intrinsic value, even without considering any potential revenue streams, just due to the fact that there are a lot of people out there who like soapboxes, and something with millions of visitors has value as a good soapbox.
I would personally pay at least $50 for Twitter if nobody else outbid me, just so I could own it and fuck around with it. Probably other wealthy people would pay more for similar vanity or having-fun-with-it reasons.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
...'tis easier to blame than to improve.
As inane as it is, you have to admit that when you have Senators and Representatives in DC , it's worth money.
Furby's were inane too.
It doesn't matter; bridges traditionally aren't built with doors. Having a troll living under them makes them inherently secure.
Twitter and the twits that use it can be used to do incredibly powerful data mining and forecasting. If you just analyze the twits coming in (I like to refer both to users and their messages by this term, it is slightly confusing but makes sense in its own way - and often, the difference is unimportant) then you can find out all kinds of things, like (to borrow from your example) where in a city it is raining, or where automobile accidents have occurred, or where the police are beating someone to death, or where the police are being beaten to death, or whatever the fuck is going on! Forget predicting flu outbreak with google, that is way too slow and has far too little resolution. :)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The deal only fell apart because... they did not agree on the price. Bummer!
\u262D = \u5350
Don't forget using Twit data mining to determine facility usage!
DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
Furbys were inane too.
And look what happened to them...
Fads are great if you think you will be able to capitalize quickly on your investment, but you don't want to be stuck holding the bag when it's all over. Web fads are even more volatile because, unlike tangible goods, there is no "collector's market" after popularity wanes. All you have is a defunct, devalued service that can no longer command the ad revenue to support itself.
I'm always positive; it's my nature.
"The actual value of a company or an asset based on an underlying perception of its true value including all aspects of the business, in terms of both tangible and intangible factors."
A site with millions of daily visitors has a non-zero intangible value.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
http://twitter.com/public_timeline
Although it looks like about 75% of users are using the API.
Follow me