561
X is officially worth less than half of what Elon Musk paid for it (www.theverge.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
83 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A year after he bought Twitter for $44 billion, Musk thinks the company is now worth $19 billion, a 55 percent drop.

Let's recap what he did to Twitter, I will go first:

  • Changed the original name Twitter to X.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 87 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Is anyone else surprised it's even worth that much?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 69 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    A lot of journalists, politicians and influencers are really reluctant to let it go. I guess those are the ones still keeping it somewhat afloat.

    It should be more publicly shamed if you keep being a part of his insanity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It's because no other social media platform currently meets their requirements. Other platforms either functions significantly different from twitter or it lacks the reach that a politician needs in order for it to be worth their time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    “Worth their time” ? Copy\paste the text into Mastodon. Post Done

    I can empathize with the reluctance to completely jump ship but it costs nothing (both money and time) to cross post to another platform.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Last time I was on mastodon during one of the many twitter migrations there was a long post saying that people should hold of on auto-blocking people that don't caption the images they post because new user haven't learned the cultural rules of mastodon. Is that a thing? I don't know, could be a particular part of mastodon, I don't know. Point is that serious public figures have been trained to be careful when adopting new social media.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It is their job to gain attention, yes. Did you think all those journalists and politicians where hobbyists or something?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I think they know how to do their jobs better than us. That is why we are talking about them and they are not talking about us.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago*

    Yep. I mean in the end it has no product. It's just billboard/ad space, in the world of commerce. Sure, it's a lot of ad space, but ad space in the digital world is also effectively endless, so the percentage still isn't actually that relevant as it can shift in a moment's notice.

    Say... if a neonazi buys the platform and brings all his friends with him.

    But beyond an office he's not even paying for and so on, Xitter got... nothing. They have no actual product that can be liquidated, no supply chains worth any money, nothing to rent/sell out beyond said adspace. Like many digital companies they rely entirely on hype for all their perceived value.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Honestly it's probably not... Estimates aside, who would even want to buy Twitter in its current incarnation?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    It still has a big enough user base and brand recognition that they could put things back on course if they really went for it. The only permanent damage is the brain drain from firing a lot of people that has experience in running twitter.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Brand recognition? That's ironic. The Twitter brand had recognition. But you can't say X, you have to say "X, formerly Twitter."

    Otherwise you're right, of course, But I can't see it being resurrected.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yes, twitter is the brand. The first action of a sane buyer would be to put the bird logo back. 20 billions of its current value comes from the fact that they still own that name.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    I don't know about the active userbase so who knows. Personally I don't think the Twitter brand is as strong as it was a year and change ago.

    Even without the change to X, is there anyone who feels that Twitter is anything more than a shell of its former self? It's not as simple as just bringing back the bird, in my opinion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent