Comment by danso | Hacker News Reader

Comment by danso | Hacker News Reader

Too bad. While Google has a rep for dropping product lines (have they ever killed a product-via-acquisition of significant size, vs. things like Reader/Buzz?), Twitter seems like it could easily add to Google's core data and revenue work, even without Google doing much additional work. I'm assuming Google's current access to the Twitter firehose is already being used or at least studied for a SERP signal. Twitter's social network provides additional ways for Google to facet and classify data. It also seems possible that Google could improve advertising on Twitter enough so that it's not just a money pit.

I don't know enough about Salesforce beyond a few of its products to imagine scenarios where Twitter has comparably low-friction integrations. Unless Disney makes a concerted effort to give Twitter autonomy...can't see how they could leverage it into something that's not just a loss-leader for entertainment. Maybe additional branding opportunities for ESPN and athletes, as well as another way to broadcast events?

edit: Any reason why Amazon isn't in the mix? Other than the obvious reason that they haven't made noise about it? Would an acquisition of Twitter's size be too unwieldy for Amazon?

That's probably the issue (for them). Most of the Twitter data is public and so they don't have that exclusivity like LinkedIn or FB. If Twitter shutoff the firehose and made all their data private like FB (i.e. only followers can see the updates and no scrapping allowed) then their valuation might have be twice or more of what it is now. I think companies like Google should be worried about this. Their new suitor can decide to put up wall to Twitter data and put them at disadvantage. Note that doing this doesn't affect their non-tech users because they continue to follow and get updates as usual.

Twitter already shutoff the firehose [1]... and it doesn't seem like that doubled their valuation.

Also, twitter's data was never truly public: you can follow tweets on some topics, but a proper deal with twitter is needed if you want access to the firehose (so it wasn't just under some pay-for-play API).

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/benkepes/2015/04/11/how-to-kill-...

Orkut. Which was a social media site with 300 million users. Same number as twitter.

That number's not correct.

What is the correct number?

The userbases are definitely comparable, even if the impact and potential revenue differs -- Orkut did not have the same reach in the U.S. as Twitter currently does. Also, AFAIK, Orkut was always a part of Google? I was thinking along the lines of, has Google shut down something that they paid billions to acquire? In terms of pure dollar amount, assuming that Twitter will go for at least a billion, only YouTube, DoubleClick, and Nest are in that neighborhood.

Too soon to make a verdict on Nest, but YT and DC seem to be the kind of acquisitions that Google paid a lot for, and from which Google advanced its bottom line and reach. FeedBurner ($100M), on the other hand...$100M is not nothing, but not as major as a Twitter acquisition would presumably be.

(AFAIK, Feedburner is still alive, but the APis have been deprecated a few years ago)

Orkut was always part of Google, it was created by a Google employee (Orkut Büyükkökten) as his 20% project.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com