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.
...'tis easier to blame than to improve.
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.'"
Yea, the intrinsic value is a whopping huge bill for servers and bandwidth and employees. I wouldn't pay 50 bucks for Twitter, because I'd go broke long before I figured out how to monetize it.
Having a zillion page views is nothing but a liability if no-one wants to pay for ads or services.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
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.