Hahahaha, /pol/ has no effect on real lif-

No they missed their revenue announcement

Is this a buy the dip situation or a watch while a shitty social network ceases to exist situation

>>1786897
>stagnant user growth
>no plan to monetize
>dudebro CEO is basically just a clueless sweater model

Yeah man. Buy the dip.

>>1786897
Their primary source of revenue (advertising) somehow lost money during a fucking presidential election. If your advertising dept. can't make money during an election cycle then you don't have a fucking advertising dept.

Not only should you not buy the dip, you can probably go ahead and take a short position on this one.

Still learning the /biz/ ropes here but are $2 dollars really that big of a indicator that it's gonna bust? Why not buy the dip?

>>1786937
a president election whose most prolific figure (and winner) was all over twitter.

The only hope for this company is a buyout, and I doubt it will be for much more than its current valuation.

I still say they should charge $0.01/tweet.

>>1786969
Don't look at it as $2 look at it as 10%

>>1786973
It's too late for that in my opinion. They'd lose a significant portion of their user base if they started charging users on a per-tweet basis. Buyout is probably eminent though as nobody will wonder why the firm can't make money if a bigger fish eats it up (here's looking at you FB...).

>>1786969
You only want to buy a dip if you think the stock will go back up. The company is not a good one in that they don't turn a profit consistently, they have poor management, they have no clear business plan to make any money besides advertising revenues, and they have no future plan to turn the business around into a profitable one. I wouldn't buy $TWTR at $1.00 much less at current levels.

>>1786969
if you own one million of twitter stock thats a whole lot of 2 dollars you just lost

>>1786969

Looking at the history it dropped by about 10% in late 2014. At that point it was trading around 50-60. You might make some chump change on it snapping back from 16 but it's not a good long-term investment. If you had a million dollars to invest you could make a nice wedge.

It's so fucking stupid that 4Chan tries to take responsibility for everything that happens now a days. Oh well, whatever makes you NEETs feel like your subtaranian life has meaning.

>>1786882
I thought /pol/ was pissed off at netflix and always hated twitter, what changed?

>>1786988
I wonder if there'd be grounds for an anti-trust lawsuit if facebook actually purchased twitter

I don't have a twitter account, never have

I am also shorting this stock. I see no chance they will grow their userbase significantly as people use snapchat/instagram etc with more competition to come.

Maybe another company will buy them, when they hit 3$

I'm not sure how they will ever make money. I use advertising on facebook and it works. I wouldn't even consider it on twitter.

The only reason to buy twitter right now is if you can assess a way for twitter to make money before they announce it.

So this is something I don't understand, and it seems pretty ridiculous to me:

Why is there a trend for social media giants NOT to monetize their product? There are so many simple ways they could do it, and many companies that would beg for a chance to advertise through them. Vine, Twitter, Snapchat, and others, have all had the easiest possible opportunities to succeed financially, but they never took them. They're basically built up on everyone's speculation that they'll take them, but they still don't.

Is it some sort of ridiculous pride? Who is running these trainwreck companies? What's actually going on here?

>>1787315
if we look at the most obvious way to monetize something, besides ad revenue, which would be either a premium service or required subscription fee, they would lose an extremely large amount of their base and no one seems willing to risk that.

>>1787315
If you are not paying for the product, you *are* the product. They're selling your ass, your data, your preferences, your attention.

Internet start-ups are so highly valued, because they scale amazingly. Doubling your customer base costs you next to nothing, just a bit of processing power, cloud storage and bandwidth. Since you can, you *want* to scale as fast as possible. Here's where a peculiarity of social networks hits and compounds: The size of the network matters! If four of your friends are on on social network A and only one of your friends is on the vastly superior social network B - which will your join? Since *networking* is the whole purpose of the damn thing, you'll obviously join A, where most of your friends are.

This leads to natural monopolies. So if you start a new social network, you want to grow and grow fast. Because the first social network to hit critical mass will become a monopoly platform (like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter). So in order to attract a lot of people, you offer a free product. And then it's hard to get away from that policy without losing your hard-earned user base.

The ideas behind these companies aren't bad (I assume, since they're popular - I don't use them personally) and it's quite smart to focus on easy access and fast growth. But quite naturally profitability becomes an afterthought at this point.

File: hesmtwD.jpg (121KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1080x1080px

Twitter really needs to get into data mining their users like facebook has been doing for awhile. That's what makes facebook ads so effective and is the reason their company has been showing steady growth IMO

File: Unbenannt.png (202KB, 650x453px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 650x453px

>falling for the internet meme

>>1787662
it will be fun to see how much worse Snap will be

>>1787315
>>1787315
https://youtu.be/BzAdXyPYKQo basically this.

>>1786969
TIL /biz/ posters don't understand percentages

File: 1486337834342.jpg (22KB, 242x261px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 242x261px

>>1788103
"""TIL""" you need to go back to plebbit

>>1787155
i know, if you see someone discussing a meme in real life they assume they go on 4chan.

File: ecb098fad8422a1684fdd8681e27c475b94d46e1.jpg (221KB, 600x587px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 600x587px

>>1786882
lol TWTR suck:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDp7SXhqC5g&t=1s

I BET EVERYBODY ON /pol/ IS FUCKINKG RICH NOW FROM SHORTING TWITTER WOOOO!!!!!

EVERYBODY MAKE SURE YOU DELETE YOUR TWITTER ACCOUNT SINCE NEW USER GROWTH IS ONE OF THE INDICATORS THAT THIS STOCK'S VALUE IS DERIVED FROM.

PRAISE KEK