nuff said

  • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    probably both. twitter was never profitable afaik, the whole idea was to have either some rich moron or (more likely) a megacorp buy it and everyone who contributed would get a fat final paycheck. but the way musk handled things definitely didn’t help either.

    • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      I just want to point out the idea that these companies not being profitable is bullshit. It just means they’ve moved money that would be profit into some other place and now they can call it something other than profit.

      Got $100k extra profit? Pay it all out as bonuses to your executives, now that $100k is an expense instead of profit.

      • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        on the surface level, makes sense, yeah. but twitter hosts video, that stuff isn’t cheap – hell, even images aren’t cheap and twitter has piss poor ad integration and a meaningless subscription that they made pretty much as uncool to buy as possible. hosting a platform that size is hella expensive.

    • kameecoding@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Twitter reported its first-ever profitable quarter Thursday after more than four years of trading on the public market. The company announced $91 million in profit for the fourth quarter of 2017. Profitability was the #goal, CEO Jack Dorsey told investors in February 2017, and Twitter nailed it. The stock was up by more than 14 percent in after-hours trading.

      https://mashable.com/article/twitter-profitable-earnings-2017-first-time

      it was profitable at least at some point