You sure it's not sinking? First Disney wanted to buy them apperantly, then Goog...

criddell · on Oct 27, 2016

> Then they both pulled out for some reason

The reason is that it's too expensive. For the right price, those companies would still be interested.

The high stock price indicates investors think Twitter can still grow a lot. That isn't clear to me.

untog · on Oct 27, 2016

> You sure it's not sinking?

As the article implies, it isn't far from profitability, and is cutting back to ensure it will be profitable.

Silicon Valley demands hockey-stick growth, but there's no reason why Twitter can't keep ticking along comfortably.

user5994461 · on Oct 27, 2016

Having half the guys around you laid off [or about to be] is not what I would call "ticking along comfortably".

Twitter is not a 100 000 people company where there's a 300 people division being restructured. It's a major management failure that needs at least 50% of lay off. At this scale, it will reflect to the entire environment and all the employees.

jussij · on Oct 28, 2016

> it isn't far from profitability

Twitter came to being back in 2006.

That's a long time to wait for the first profit.

nkozyra · on Oct 27, 2016

The biggest criticism levied against Twitter are:

1. Not lean enough. That's why today's news bumped their share price.

2. Not great at leveraging value into revenue. That's what an acquirer would do, ostensibly.

Plus, the specifics of the Disney/Google rumors are of dubious veracity. Don't put too much, er, stock into them.

You could argue that they've hit peak audience and that might be fair. A change in leadership would probably push Twitter into becoming a more aggressive on the acquisition front itself, too. Basically, a lot of untapped value and too much overhead.