Big shake up at Twitter continues(plus.google.com)
plus.google.com
Big shake up at Twitter continues
https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/X58hnS9PMct
13 comments
It's not quite accurate. As far as i know, two of the people listed as having left haven't (yet) and others who did leave aren't listed.
https://twitter.com/jkalucki/status/104452365515628544
Of folks who were there at 2007, about one to two years in to twitter's life, there is still @jkalucki, @alissa, @robey, @stevej, and @jack of course.
The truth is that for the most part there were people hired in above the original employees and they were able to keep doing tech roles. Most didn't move in to senior management. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
https://twitter.com/jkalucki/status/104452365515628544
Of folks who were there at 2007, about one to two years in to twitter's life, there is still @jkalucki, @alissa, @robey, @stevej, and @jack of course.
The truth is that for the most part there were people hired in above the original employees and they were able to keep doing tech roles. Most didn't move in to senior management. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
Random thought: Are Apple the most likely buyer for Twitter? I bet there's a lot of overlap between their users, and it would be a nice addition as a native app on the iPhone. Also Twitter's prominent usage among celebrities, musicians etc might make a nice complement to iTunes.
And it gets Apple's foot in the door of (realtime) search.
And it gets Apple's foot in the door of (realtime) search.
What I've noticed is that Apple like to charge money for their products and services, with spectacular fiscal results. Why would they want to blow money on Twitter?
You're right, but they also aren't averse to providing free stuff when it backs up a product. Eg. Ping (admittedly dire), iTunes (free music player), all the free stuff in the App store (apps, podcasts, ebooks). And Facetime.
Any time someone says "company x hates company y", I stop reading, because it's always more nuanced than that. Any sufficiently large company competes with others on some fronts and collaborates with them on others. Apple uses Google Maps and Samsung chips. Google employees have MacBooks (and yes, they are even allowed to carry iPhones if they prefer).
At the end of the day it's about who can make the most money, and which set of alliances will get them there. No more, no less.
At the end of the day it's about who can make the most money, and which set of alliances will get them there. No more, no less.
If I dare say the blind 'this tribe hates that tribe' seems like a very modern concept. It was always subtle alliances, people fighting and cooperating together, bar some very monotheistic warfare like the crusades, and even they were not so black and white.
> If I dare say the blind 'this tribe hates that tribe' seems like a very modern concept.
No, that must be one of the oldest tools of demagoguery ever. It was probably useful in the prehistoric "environment of evolutionary adaptedness" out on the plains of Africa.
No, that must be one of the oldest tools of demagoguery ever. It was probably useful in the prehistoric "environment of evolutionary adaptedness" out on the plains of Africa.
Yep. Maybe small companies are this way but within something the size of Apple or Google there are always different groups with different plans and priorities.
Scoble got his facts wrong, and wrote a followup: https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/birhHh9j...
[deleted]
https://twitter.com/#!/stevej/status/104955838384451584
> @Scobleizer hey, @robey and I still work at Twitter. @jeremy left in 2009 but we see him in the office from time-to-time.
Why do people still listen to him?