Hacker News Reader

Comment by segmondy | Hacker News Reader

Why the hell is their expense that high? 350 million users, sure it's a lot. Plus they have to store the messages for a long time and it's not like a text message but more like a group chat. Still, most of their expense can't be going towards their tech stack but headcount. Anyone that takes over the company is going to be doing massive layoffs. They should do it their self and become profitable or else someone is going to do it and run of their good folks in the process. They are about to become the new Yahoo if they don't turn themselves around quickly.

View on HN

>Why the hell is their expense that high? 350 million users, sure it's a lot. Plus they have to store the messages for a long time and it's not like a text message but more like a group chat. Still, most of their expense can't be going towards their tech stack but headcount.

yep. I don't think the difference between WhatsApp and Twitter in features explain such a difference in headcount and expenses.

Every time I've looked at their reports, stock-based compensation is significantly greater than the total net loss. It seems like the classic tech bubble company where there's a solid large company which is at risk because they're spending like a profitable huge company.

Getting rid of half their staff probably wouldn't hurt. In fact, they might finally be able to turn a profit.

> Anyone that takes over the company is going to be doing massive layoffs.

Rapidly-growing tech behemoths like Google can afford to acquihire hundred of engineers and, eventually, assign them to other work.

Maybe. But at the same time, with over 3,000 employees and a small set of products, that's not only a lot to take on but much of which is likely redundant. With so many surely they hold a fair amount of under performers as well.

What other work? Is there a company out there that actually has 3,000 employees-worth of work to get done, but nobody to do it? I thought we were in general facing the opposite problem: Lots of bodies but not enough work, leading to under-employment.

It depends how fussy employers are about their employees. Employers are always saying there is a talent shortage.

You would think that, but honestly the site is broken more often than not for me. Right this very moment all pic.twitter links are just redirecting to "https//" URLs.

And that's in an incognito tab.

One of the best ways to resolve issues in a project is simplifying. You don't need so many if you are going to simplify. Though, anecdotally, I haven't had any issues with the site or service for a few years now. So I can't imagine they have many production issues that affect all the users.

I haven't done a formal study but their t.co url shortener (which is forced on anyone who posts any url) is often broken or extremely slow. Twitter seems like a company where hardcore systems engineers probably take a backseat to "visionary product managers"

Many of those employees will be on the ad platform. Google already has a good ad platform...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com