7 ms·

Just makes the eventual Google acquisition one bit easier.

mobilekid7 8y ago
That crossed my mind the minute I read the headline too. I can imagine folks at Google getting excited about this first step...
StudentStuff 8y ago
With Twitter's current state and Google's moves to kill their social side, this is unlikely. Why buy a moderate sized social network when you just killed your similarly sized social network?
- chipperyman573 8y ago
  If you're referring to G+, I don't think G+ was a "moderate sized social network" any more than twitter (although in opposite directions). Also, imo, calling them "similarly sized" would be incorrect, except perhaps in signed up users (from which google got a ton from the "login with google and your account is already setup", not daily active users)
  - StudentStuff 8y ago
    300 million monthly active users on G+ to Twitter's 335 million monthly active users, they were nearly identical in size. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%2B#Growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%2B#Growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter (see sidebar)
    - chipperyman573 8y ago
      Wow, really?? In that case, what caused G+ to fail? I was always under the impression that it was due to (low) DAUs.
      - ummonk 8y ago
        High MAUs doesn't necessarily translate to high DAUs.
        kkarakk 8y ago
        yeah i visited g+ primarily for the active dev communities oriented around google products. def just once or twice a week and the activity on those "circles" was pretty slow
        jng 8y ago
        Indeed, and high DAUs doesn't translate to a high number of engaged users either. Just a 301 HTTP redirect through a domain as part of a chain can count as DAU and mean nothing.
      - StudentStuff 8y ago
        Slow growth/lack of user traction was what caused Google to pull the plug. Its a similar overarching problem to Twitter, but more of users being disinterested than actively repulsed due to the content the most popular users of said service post...
      - doyoulikeworms 8y ago
        The Wikipedia article goes on to talk about G+'s very low engagement. I wouldn't be surprised if Twitter's engagement rates were somewhere near Facebook's. > User engagement on Google+ was low compared with its competitors; ComScore estimated that users averaged just 3.3 minutes on the site in January 2012, versus 7.5 hours for Facebook.[22][23] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%2B#Growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%2B#Growth)
        mrweasel 8y ago
        That makes you question if they actually had 300 millions "active" users.
    - ClassyJacket 8y ago
      Is that countint actual use of Google Plus or does that count anything that connects to it (comment boxes, YouTube, etc.). Hell, the Chromecast screensaver photos are hosted on Google Plus.
    - simula67 8y ago
      Google may have been exaggerating these numbers. From https://www.blog.google/technology/safety-security/expediting-changes-google-plus/ https://www.blog.google/technology/safety-security/expeditin... > Google+ currently has low usage and engagement: 90 percent of Google+ user sessions are less than five seconds
    - acdha 8y ago
      Don’t forget that they ran logins and notifications for everything through the Google+ interface and did things to juice the numbers like uncontrollable push notifications every time someone you’d ever exchanged email with joined (hi random person who bought a bookcase on Craigslist!). The G+ numbers looked suspicious if you ran any sort of public website, where e.g. I saw metrics for referrals or shares at least an order of magnitude lower than Facebook or Twitter.
bduerst 8y ago
What would Google gain from the acquisition that they don't already have? AFAIK Twitter allows search indexing and is already a publisher on their network.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  >>What would Google gain from the acquisition that they don't already have? Google will "enhance the tweets" by showing 4-5 "relevant ads" before you even see the tweet. Tweethancer
- ec109685 8y ago
  They don't provide their realtime firehose for free, though.
  - bduerst 8y ago
    Surely that cost isn't anywhere near $24B, which is the market cap for Twitter.
    - ec109685 8y ago
      For 24B, you get Twitter (an asset), plus its Firehose. I was mostly pointing at then Twitter has data that google does not.
dana321 8y ago
Yeah, they've failed at every attempt of making a pure social network (they bought youtube, its a kind of social network) with Microsoft buying github, it would be prudent of them to buy Twitter before someone else does.
wstrange 8y ago
It will be interesting to watch. My hunch is that after looking at the shit storm that is happening around Facebook, Google may be having second thoughts about being in the social networking business (youtube excluded).

That crossed my mind the minute I read the headline too. I can imagine folks at Google getting excited about this first step...

StudentStuff 8y ago

With Twitter's current state and Google's moves to kill their social side, this is unlikely. Why buy a moderate sized social network when you just killed your similarly sized social network?

chipperyman573 8y ago
If you're referring to G+, I don't think G+ was a "moderate sized social network" any more than twitter (although in opposite directions). Also, imo, calling them "similarly sized" would be incorrect, except perhaps in signed up users (from which google got a ton from the "login with google and your account is already setup", not daily active users)
- StudentStuff 8y ago
  300 million monthly active users on G+ to Twitter's 335 million monthly active users, they were nearly identical in size. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%2B#Growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%2B#Growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter (see sidebar)
  - chipperyman573 8y ago
    Wow, really?? In that case, what caused G+ to fail? I was always under the impression that it was due to (low) DAUs.
    - ummonk 8y ago
      High MAUs doesn't necessarily translate to high DAUs.
      - kkarakk 8y ago
        yeah i visited g+ primarily for the active dev communities oriented around google products. def just once or twice a week and the activity on those "circles" was pretty slow
      - jng 8y ago
        Indeed, and high DAUs doesn't translate to a high number of engaged users either. Just a 301 HTTP redirect through a domain as part of a chain can count as DAU and mean nothing.
    - StudentStuff 8y ago
      Slow growth/lack of user traction was what caused Google to pull the plug. Its a similar overarching problem to Twitter, but more of users being disinterested than actively repulsed due to the content the most popular users of said service post...
    - doyoulikeworms 8y ago
      The Wikipedia article goes on to talk about G+'s very low engagement. I wouldn't be surprised if Twitter's engagement rates were somewhere near Facebook's. > User engagement on Google+ was low compared with its competitors; ComScore estimated that users averaged just 3.3 minutes on the site in January 2012, versus 7.5 hours for Facebook.[22][23] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%2B#Growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%2B#Growth)
      - mrweasel 8y ago
        That makes you question if they actually had 300 millions "active" users.
  - ClassyJacket 8y ago
    Is that countint actual use of Google Plus or does that count anything that connects to it (comment boxes, YouTube, etc.). Hell, the Chromecast screensaver photos are hosted on Google Plus.
  - simula67 8y ago
    Google may have been exaggerating these numbers. From https://www.blog.google/technology/safety-security/expediting-changes-google-plus/ https://www.blog.google/technology/safety-security/expeditin... > Google+ currently has low usage and engagement: 90 percent of Google+ user sessions are less than five seconds
  - acdha 8y ago
    Don’t forget that they ran logins and notifications for everything through the Google+ interface and did things to juice the numbers like uncontrollable push notifications every time someone you’d ever exchanged email with joined (hi random person who bought a bookcase on Craigslist!). The G+ numbers looked suspicious if you ran any sort of public website, where e.g. I saw metrics for referrals or shares at least an order of magnitude lower than Facebook or Twitter.

bduerst 8y ago

What would Google gain from the acquisition that they don't already have? AFAIK Twitter allows search indexing and is already a publisher on their network.

onetimemanytime 8y ago
>>What would Google gain from the acquisition that they don't already have? Google will "enhance the tweets" by showing 4-5 "relevant ads" before you even see the tweet. Tweethancer
ec109685 8y ago
They don't provide their realtime firehose for free, though.
- bduerst 8y ago
  Surely that cost isn't anywhere near $24B, which is the market cap for Twitter.
  - ec109685 8y ago
    For 24B, you get Twitter (an asset), plus its Firehose. I was mostly pointing at then Twitter has data that google does not.

dana321 8y ago

Yeah, they've failed at every attempt of making a pure social network (they bought youtube, its a kind of social network) with Microsoft buying github, it would be prudent of them to buy Twitter before someone else does.

wstrange 8y ago

It will be interesting to watch. My hunch is that after looking at the shit storm that is happening around Facebook, Google may be having second thoughts about being in the social networking business (youtube excluded).