350
submitted 1 year ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Rhaedas@kbin.social 89 points 1 year ago

The logo has been very successful in branding the company, as well as the companion verb "tweet". I think a company has reached peak when its name or something connected is used as an action verb. If he had taken over McDs he'd be tossing out the arches and even Big Mac with claims that they are the problem.

Twitter may have not been in great shape financially when he took over, but at least it had somewhat of an image. Musk is the contractor you called to fix a leak in the roof, and he burns the house down. He fixed the leak alright.

[-] root@socialmedia.fail 21 points 1 year ago

Twitter was doing fine financially before Musk bought it. He paid more than twice what it was worth and he used loans to do it, that's what this is all about.

[-] atomWood@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

Twitter has never really been a financially viable company. They were losing money year after year. That’s not what I would call financially stable. There’s a reason they did everything they could to force Musk to buy it when he tried to back out.

[-] root@socialmedia.fail 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah there is a reason, the reason is because his dumbass offered more than twice what the company was worth.

Lots of tech companies operate at slightly under profitability. They were doing fine.

[-] UnverifiedAPK@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Twitter was doing fine financially before Musk bought it.

No it wasn't 😂

He just lit a sinking ship on fire, yes it's worse but it was bad before too.

[-] root@socialmedia.fail 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Lmao, I mean, it indisputably was. Objective facts exist. It was a publicly traded company so there is plenty of professional financial analysis available on the subject which you could easily access if you wanted to. Some of it even written at a level you could potentially understand.

Or just continue on wallowing in your own ignorance, whatever.

[-] min_fapper@iusearchlinux.fyi 6 points 1 year ago

Could you please link one such financial analysis? Preferably one that's easy to absorb for the layman?

I'm not op but am very interested to know more 🙂

[-] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

It's profitability varied from quarter to quarter, but the last few quarters of 2021 and 2022 or negative. Before that, they did have some very successful quarters in 2018 and 2019.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/299119/twitter-net-income-quarterly/

[-] root@socialmedia.fail 4 points 1 year ago

Here's a pretty cool site that I think illustrates the original point that they were in decent financial shape

https://www.readyratios.com/sec/TWTR_twitter-inc

[-] blivet@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes, the name of the company, the logo, and the idea of “tweets” are all a charming evocation of a world filled with brief messages. Twitter has problems, but branding isn’t one of them.

[-] bilboswaggings@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But now we can call them "Regretful and sad late-night attempts to get her back" (based on Ex)

I think it's much more catchy and advertiser friendly than "Tweet" /s

[-] sensibilidades@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

What's the new word for microblogging on X corp? "Musk x-ed this morning that ..."

Funny, because "x-ing out" is what I do whenever I accidentally click on a twitter link nowadays!

[-] csolisr@communities.azkware.net 3 points 1 year ago

Imagine if he thought that "X-ing" was a viable alternative to "tweeting". Heck even "tooting" and "firefishing" would fit better

[-] UnverifiedAPK@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

You say that like x-posting isn't a common term

this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
350 points (100.0% liked)

World News

32083 readers
724 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS