Wouldn't barely breaking even actually be exceptionally good in the history of twitter? I though it had been burning money from its conception.
this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2025
377 points (95.2% liked)
Technology
61085 readers
4444 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
No, Twitter had started making a profit when he bought it. The last year they had a court case which made the year a loss, but the years before were profitable.
You'd expect it -- most online companies do, as it makes sense for companies with high fixed costs and low variable costs -- to have a growth phase, during which it loses money but aims to grow by being very appealing. Once it's grown as far as it reasonably can or as money permits, the growth phase ends and the monetization phase begins. Twitter's growth phase was over. It would never have been expected for Twitter to just lose money forever.
I think it's time to fire half of the people! That will help.
Starting with everyone that wrote the least amount of code. I only want to see overly complex code for hello world!
Awww, is the world’s greediest man not making enough money?
Stick that seig arm out and well break more,k?
Does stagnant actually mean negative?