Hacker News Reader

Comment by jolux | Hacker News Reader

According to this, Facebook revenue per-user-per-year is about $30, so $2/mo (post-Apple cut) is probably not far off for Twitter: https://www.statista.com/statistics/234056/facebooks-average.... But of course, why replace that revenue when you could double it?

edit: here's an ARPU estimate for Twitter in 2016, it was around $2/quarter: https://www.statista.com/statistics/430874/twitter-annualize...

View on HN

That $30/year figure is likely averaged over the globe, therefore their North American stat is likely quite a bit higher. Given the quality of ads on twitter that I see, I suspect my value to them is much, much lower. Their ad network just seems terrible compared to Facebook so it's surprising they didn't offer a $10/month ad-free version.

I would guess that the subset of users willing/able to pay for something like this is more valuable to advertisers than the average twitter user.

At this price point I wouldn't be surprised if they would lose money by offering no ads as part of the package.

A majority of Facebook users live in third worlds countries though, they wont generate a lot of money no matter what you do.

you should really get these kind of data straight from the source when you can. stastica is sometimes useful for some hard to get metrics. this is not one.

https://investor.fb.com/investor-events/event-details/2021/F...

this is their q1 earnings presentation https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_financials/2021/FB...

US/CA arpu is $48.03 for just q1 (just 3 month not for the year). Global arpu is $9.27.

there's no way $3/mo makes any sense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com