Slashdot Mirror
A Customer-Driven Business Model For Twitter (jeffreifman.com)
reifman writes: As revolving door of Twitter executives makes headlines and its $100+ million quarterly losses continue, it's not clear the company will survive the year without being acquired for a quarter of its offering price. The solution for Twitter's business challenges could be to adopt an engaging feature rich subscriber model that reaffirms its status as the platform of a global democratic communication hub. Here are fifteen ideas for Twitter to transform into a profitable user-centered business including integration of open source Signal for secure phone calls and direct messaging, Stellar for payments and domain mapping and blog hosting with your feed front and center.
me neither
Not being a shitty service catering to every whiny shitbag SJW on the planet would be a good start to recovery.
What do they spend these millions on? Taking ludes on a superyacht in the Bahamas?
It is just a service that takes in bits of plaintext and spits them out to multiple users, most of them are using an app so no huge bandwidth cost (although still not as efficient as it could be) there is no valid technical reason for it to cost 100's of millions. A system like Twitter could be completely decentralised and P2P based and nobody would have to spend any extra to run it, the corporation behind Twitter doesn't serve any purpose as far as I can tell.
I have no clue how they can not be making money with a user base that huge and advertising on it. I'm utterly baffled. It's like the management want it to fail so it can be sold in an acquisition for far less than it's actual value to the people they rub shoulders with while they inflate their own salaries by huge factors with no comeuppance or risk to themselves personally.. ...
Oh, right.
Its hard to contain or spin changes to terms and conditions on users to fit global standards for jurisdictions that have no freedoms.
Users have a lot of traditional computing services for "work" or other than work activities to keep communications bland.
A walled garden is great for a set of users with the same views who have to live under their theocracy, monarchy, court systems or repressive governments.
The more a brand been about about open, free communications hopes to shape, contain, report, track freedom of speech, the harder it gets to attract interesting, creative people.
Once the tend setters feel they are been herded into something chilling they will move on. The herd of users will follow to more free platforms that respect their views and thoughts.
So what can future web 2.0 and social media creators learn?
If you start your company in the USA, allow freedom of speech and let users speak their minds. The rest of the world can opt to join in or not.
Users globally already have their own free gov sanctioned web 2.0 sites that are full of tracked accounts swapping everyday content.
Once a brand clamps down on freedom of speech, can the user base from nations with no freedoms be a useful long term user base?
Sell the amazing role of freedom of speech to the world, trying to keep censors happy just makes users look for any better platform.
Also open the platform to other people and OS's. Having your brand all over brands hardware and software is a plus.
As for profit, good to have that in place to that during the design stage, ready to go, not as a new project years later.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Twitter has been taken over by public relations firms, minor celebrities, and social justice warriors. Besides simple trolling, insults, and social signaling, its contents consist largely of republished headlines and self promotion. People aren't interesting in having that bullshit pushed on them in 160 character chunks, and they are certainly not going to pay for it. That's why Twitter is pretty much doomed.
...and the resulting company will be known as YouTwitFace.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot