Hacker News Reader

Comment by dave2000 | Hacker News Reader

dave2000

It's possible to over think things. Twitter exists to make money. They clearly thought this change would cost them nothing, and would perhaps save them money and effort. I don't think the "Twitter is a ..." thing has any relevance to the decision making process. I can think of very few things, related to the Internet, that haven't turned - or are not on the process of turning to - shit. No matter how cool anything starts out being, eventually the original developers sell it on or come up with stupid ideas and it gets ruined. It's like some inescapable physical property.

View on HN

> Twitter exists to make money.

True, but for a platform business there has to be a correct recognition of the relevant time horizon. Amazon's profitability numbers in its first decade illustrate this.

Surely the lesson from Amazon is that you can get by for a long time without making loads of money, as long as you don't make stupid decisions, and get rid of the consequences of stuff that didn't work out before it hurts you.

Twitter makes decisions that people on the internet grumble about and make blog posts about and yes, even post on twitter about, but they still keep using twitter, which is all twitter cares about.

I think this oversimplifies things. If Twitter was making money we would not see such turmoil in the team or so much floundering about revenue generation tactics.

Yes - Twitter exists to make money.

But they need to decide how they want to make their money and grow in parallel. Is it ads? Celebrities accounts? Is it selling API access?

If I'm Twitter CEO I would stick with "developer friendly" approach in order to re-start Twitter growth.

In short, my opinion is that companies needs to be nice with developers and cherish them all the way until the company is very very successful. I guess Twitter executives think that they made it and "developer friendly" stage is behind them.

I would say that even if the developer-friendly stage was behind them (and given how rapidly the web evolves, I don't think that any social-media company should ever consider itself past that stage), the fair thing to do - in my eyes - is to at the very least show some gratitude for the people who helped you get where you are today.

Twitter and Facebook may be Big Corp today, but that wasn't always the case, and a lot of the initial growth that helped them get into the mainstream was due to hobbyists and independent devs that made cool little apps like EmojiTracker that would catch the attention of early adopters that then became the initial users of the platform.

The sad thing is that while Facebook became the generic one-size-fits-all "mom and dad" network (I can't even remember the last time I even used one of their 'apps' or whatever), Twitter really had the potential to evolve into something beyond that, if only it cultivated better relationships with their devs and encouraged people to build on and experiment with the platform.

Oh well. Lets keep an eye out for the next thing, I suppose!

If twitter exists to make money, then why aren't they operating a franchise network of fast-food restaurants, since that more obviously makes money than an sms-length syndication service. Also, shouldn't they be selling music streaming? Why aren't they in most markets at all? Do most markets have a marginal revenue of zero or negative?

Because Twitter doesn't "exist to make money" it also "exists to be Twitter." I'd prefer to never again hear that something "exists to make money", which is quite facile.

EDIT: there's a bit of a war between downvoters and upvoters on this comment. Let me break it down for you. The only way to agree that "twitter exists to make money" is by agreeing that the mission statement of every company on Earth should be, "Make money." Not much of a mission statement is it?

The first mission of every organization is not making money, it is living longer.

Maybe you think that should be the first mission of every organization, but it clearly isn't. After all, if you gave me $2M and I was supposed to use it to set up an organization that survives for as long as possible, it is likely that I could easily set up a legal entity in the United States that has a recognizable successor 300 years later (and no expenses or employees). If administrative costs are as high as $5K per year, with zero interest, that is still 400 years. But lots of organizations have more than $2M as some point, but at a later point just a couple of years later go bankrupt and simply disappear. Clearly it is not the first mission of every organization to live longer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com