Comments on: Why Twitter Didn't Sell to Facebook — Really

By: Google May Buy Twitter. Or Not. But Why is Twitter So Hot?

Google May Buy Twitter. Or Not. But Why is Twitter So Hot? — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:18:10 +0000

[...] they are in for the long haul and want to turn fast-growing Twitter into a big company. Remember they turned down Facebook, which wanted to buy them for $500 million. They can hold out for more — especially [...]

By: Reading it later 4 at Otakurean?

Reading it later 4 at Otakurean? — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:21:55 +0000

[...] Why twitter didn’t sell to facebook [...]

By: Facebook’s Liquidity Troubles - GigaOM

Facebook’s Liquidity Troubles - GigaOM — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:12:26 +0000

[...] valuation, but until a sale occurs, that value is theoretical (even if that theoretical value has very real business impacts). Maybe by the time its investors are required to officially asses the value of their investment [...]

By: links for 2008-12-05 | stuart henshall

links for 2008-12-05 | stuart henshall — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:03:34 +0000

[...] Why Twitter Didn’t Sell to Facebook — Really – GigaOM Useful perspective on Twitter via Om. That six million number is a real jump! Am sure like skype many users have multiple accounts and many are dormant. Still this is exciting progress! (tags: twitter gigaom) [...]

By: gfish

gfish — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 02:54:26 +0000

1. I said this in BusinessWeek and I’ll say it anywhere, the Microsoft/Facebook deal was a way for Microsoft to part their struggling ad network on Facebook and run up possible impressions for advertisers. They wanted to block the likes of Yahoo and Google so they offered $240 million and said that they’re buying a tiny sliver of a company to make sure that their competitors would have to come in with huge offers for a new supposedly $15 billion company.

2. @Mike, yes $150 million is more than $120 million but Twitter should sell their company for much more than that. At $150 million, it’s just a 12.5% premium and a tech company can grow by 12% or so in a year. If you can grow in a year independently, why sell? Most companies are sold at premiums between 35% and 50% so a good deal for Twitter would’ve been something between $162 million to $180 million. Really good companies are sold at double their money and with Twitter being a very widely used tool and a stable company, they could easily entertain offers of $250 million and up.

By: Twitter thoughts « Loo.me (aka Sideways8)

Twitter thoughts « Loo.me (aka Sideways8) — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:27:11 +0000

[...] Why Twitter Didn’t Sell to Facebook – Really [...]

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:54:46 +0000

Uhh, last time I checked 150 million was more than 120 million. They should of sold it.

By: michaelportent

michaelportent — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:07:26 +0000

I think, especially in a down economy, any social networking valuation is probably way off. If Facebook was generating even close to the kind of ad revenues that search engines get (they certainly never, ever will), it’d still probably be an over-valuation.

The inherent problem with Twitter is a) its user base is growing faster than they can really sustain it and b) without some base level of advertising, the whole thing could collapse quickly.

Combine those two realities that Facebook and Twitter are looking at separately and together it’d be like 2 people hopping in a 1-man boat that’s being pulled under by the tide.

Both companies need to find a way to monetize without breaking the bond of clean, useful functionality to their user bases.

By: Twitter y Facebook: te compro el 100% de tu sueño por el 3% del mío

Twitter y Facebook: te compro el 100% de tu sueño por el 3% del mío — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:22:14 +0000

[...] leyendo en GigaOm las razones por las cuales Evan Williams de Twitter rechazó la oferta por Twitter de $500 millones [...]

By: William

William — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 09:01:58 +0000

Open Source Developers and users, Break the chains of web 2.0 share cropping. Understand that Twitter is a closed source application and more than likely will want any Open Source competitor to their service to fail.

Twitter the friendly little bird wants to become a closed source monopoly. Twitter wants to lock you and your content into their closed silo and they want to generate millions in revenue off of your content, and for this they will give you nothing back to you or your community in return.

With an Open Source solution you at least have a copy of the application that you have given value. With Open Source you have a choice. If you want to do things differently you are “Free” to take the software and do so. This kind of Freedom also keeps any ideas of vendor/data/content lock in out of the picture.

At adelph.us we believe in members freedom to control their accounts, and their content. We also believe that any revenue model should always put the members in the equation first. We believe in the Open Source community and ideals. We know we are not the smartest guys in the room and trust the our community of members and developers.

Break the chains of the old web 2.0 model. Do not give your content or your software development work to closed source old world companies they only seek to profit from your actions, and that give nothing back to you or to your communities.