Twitter’s Rebrand to X Could Be a Trademark Nightmare Thanks to Microsoft(themessenger.com)
themessenger.com
Twitter’s Rebrand to X Could Be a Trademark Nightmare Thanks to Microsoft
https://themessenger.com/tech/twitters-rebrand-to-x-could-be-a-trademark-nightmare-thanks-to-microsoft
489 comments
Isn’t it only the logo that’s trademarked, rather than the name “X”? I am not an expert on trademarks by all means, how likely is it that Meta would actually have a case here?
This is correct. I'm not a trademark lawyer, though I have filed some.
There are two main types: a "standard character mark" (which is text) and the rest, which are visual logo designs.
This one is the latter. That is, they're not trademarking the text "X", just that particular visual representation — the colors involved, etc.
You can tell in the TEAS system by looking in the "Mark Information" section, and the "Standard Character Claim: No" line.
There are two main types: a "standard character mark" (which is text) and the rest, which are visual logo designs.
This one is the latter. That is, they're not trademarking the text "X", just that particular visual representation — the colors involved, etc.
You can tell in the TEAS system by looking in the "Mark Information" section, and the "Standard Character Claim: No" line.
Right, and the two X logos (the one from Meta and the one from Twitter) are visually very different I’d say. But of course, I’m not a lawyer.
>That is, they're not trademarking the text "X", just that particular visual representation — the colors involved, etc.
However, the 'X' they chose is "just" a single UTF8 character, which would then make it classed as a _standard character mark_.
Hmmm.
However, the 'X' they chose is "just" a single UTF8 character, which would then make it classed as a _standard character mark_.
Hmmm.
No, I don't believe so in this case. Though I agree the USPTO page can be confusing (:
The Meta trademark is for this design: https://tsdr.uspto.gov/img/87980831/large?1690302463976
It's true that they use the text "X" in the (textual) description of the trademark, but that is not what's being trademarked. See the "Mark Information" drop-down on the page[1], for more detail.
[1] https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87980831&caseType=SERIAL_...
The Meta trademark is for this design: https://tsdr.uspto.gov/img/87980831/large?1690302463976
It's true that they use the text "X" in the (textual) description of the trademark, but that is not what's being trademarked. See the "Mark Information" drop-down on the page[1], for more detail.
[1] https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87980831&caseType=SERIAL_...
[deleted]
You already said you're not a trademark lawyer.
But could you even get a trademark for X, a single character?
But could you even get a trademark for X, a single character?
Yes. Microsoft has a character mark for "X", as mentioned in the article (https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=76041368&caseSearchType=U...). The reason that's allowed is because it's _narrowly tailored_:
> Providing on-line chat rooms for transmission of messages among computer users concerning video and computer games; providing on-line electronic bulletin boards for transmission of messages among computer users concerning video and computer games
> Entertainment services, namely, providing interactive multiplayer game services for games played over computer networks and global communications networks; providing computer games and video games downloadable over computer global communications networks; providing information on the video game and computer game industries via the Internet; and providing information on computer games, video games, video game consoles and accessories therefor via the Internet
So for _those narrow usecases_, Microsoft can (in theory) enforce a trademark over the character "X". Any attempt to use that trademark here would be tossed immediately IMO.
> Providing on-line chat rooms for transmission of messages among computer users concerning video and computer games; providing on-line electronic bulletin boards for transmission of messages among computer users concerning video and computer games
> Entertainment services, namely, providing interactive multiplayer game services for games played over computer networks and global communications networks; providing computer games and video games downloadable over computer global communications networks; providing information on the video game and computer game industries via the Internet; and providing information on computer games, video games, video game consoles and accessories therefor via the Internet
So for _those narrow usecases_, Microsoft can (in theory) enforce a trademark over the character "X". Any attempt to use that trademark here would be tossed immediately IMO.
Those narrow use cases definitely seem to overlap with Twitter though. Obviously Twitter is not exclusively about video and computer games, but a subset of Twitter users certainly use Twitter "for transmission of messages among computer users concerning video and computer games"
Not a lawyer but I don’t think that matters. Twitter isn’t using the mark for a service about video games, inasmuch as nobody would describe Twitter in one sentence as “a messaging platform about video games” any more than they’d describe email or SMS that way.
You never know but I think this would be too far of a stretch to pose a real risk.
You never know but I think this would be too far of a stretch to pose a real risk.
Not yet, but if Twitter aims to become an everything app, it will naturally infringe.
Is Microsoft's trademark for "X" or for their specific 'design' of "X"?
Microsoft's trademark is for just the letter "X", not the specific design.
This is extra-confusing on the USPTO site[1] because it says "Standard Character Claim: No" (which usually means not text), but it also says "Mark Drawing Type: 1 - TYPESET WORD(S) /LETTER(S) /NUMBER(S)".
And that last part is merely the old way of saying it is Standard Character Claim (that's the newer terminology). See their documentation[2] (page 7); the terminology changed in 2003.
Some more info here: https://trademarkgarden.com/2018/03/09/amazon-and-you/
So my understanding (not a lawyer) is that Microsoft's "X" is indeed generic text, though still limited to the specific goods/services listed in the application.
[1] https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=2693757&caseSearchType=US...
[2] https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/products/applicati...
This is extra-confusing on the USPTO site[1] because it says "Standard Character Claim: No" (which usually means not text), but it also says "Mark Drawing Type: 1 - TYPESET WORD(S) /LETTER(S) /NUMBER(S)".
And that last part is merely the old way of saying it is Standard Character Claim (that's the newer terminology). See their documentation[2] (page 7); the terminology changed in 2003.
Some more info here: https://trademarkgarden.com/2018/03/09/amazon-and-you/
So my understanding (not a lawyer) is that Microsoft's "X" is indeed generic text, though still limited to the specific goods/services listed in the application.
[1] https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=2693757&caseSearchType=US...
[2] https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/products/applicati...
Trademark are there to reduce confusion in the marketplace so it’s not about the look of X alone but also the products involved. Acura’s A logo is very distinctive but Audi couldn’t just swap their logo an A in a circle using a different font and be ok. They are both car companies so having different A logos would be confusing.
Where the specific design of the logo is critical is for shirts etc. If you’re selling clothing with other people’s logos that’s a problem, but a distinctive X design is going to be fine.
Where the specific design of the logo is critical is for shirts etc. If you’re selling clothing with other people’s logos that’s a problem, but a distinctive X design is going to be fine.
This is (to my understanding) the difference between a character mark and a design mark. The Acura logo is a design mark. Acura don't, AFAIK (but I haven't searched because searching the USPTO for "A" sounds like hell) have a character mark on the letter A for use in cars. Consider the counterexample in the same industry: Honda and Hyundai both have H in a frame as a logo, and I have no knowledge of a trademark dispute between the two.
The X trademark in question appears to be a Service Mark[0], meaning it is a name to represent a service (in this case some kind of social media chat service). My understanding is that the trademark applies to competing services regardless of the artwork or logo, so the social media chat service formerly known as Twitter may have trouble avoiding a collision with it if they want to rename themselves X.
[0] https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=76041368&caseSearchType=U...
The X trademark in question appears to be a Service Mark[0], meaning it is a name to represent a service (in this case some kind of social media chat service). My understanding is that the trademark applies to competing services regardless of the artwork or logo, so the social media chat service formerly known as Twitter may have trouble avoiding a collision with it if they want to rename themselves X.
[0] https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=76041368&caseSearchType=U...
Yes, though my point about the circle should have been more clear. I think Audi could be fine with an A inside of an triangle because it would be plenty distinctive.
Similarly the Honda and Hyundai logos use very different frames rather than the common circle which makes them far easier to distinguish than different fonts inside a circle. Namely a box with rounded corners vs an oval. Honda’s H also floats in the frame where Hyundai connects to the oval etc. The point of a logo is to be distinctive and they are.
Similarly the Honda and Hyundai logos use very different frames rather than the common circle which makes them far easier to distinguish than different fonts inside a circle. Namely a box with rounded corners vs an oval. Honda’s H also floats in the frame where Hyundai connects to the oval etc. The point of a logo is to be distinctive and they are.
Anecdotally I have heard people confusing these two brands - e.g. seeing a Hyundai and calling it a Honda.
That’s hardly limited to Hyundai and Honda.
> But could you even get a trademark for X, a single character?
Yes. In fact there are at least a few registrations in the TESS database of X for various goods and services. They don’t conflict with each other unless the goods and services are the same.
Yes. In fact there are at least a few registrations in the TESS database of X for various goods and services. They don’t conflict with each other unless the goods and services are the same.
Yes, just bring money and lawyers, and you have it. The same with patents.
Yes, that's obviously not true here, since both companies have money and lawyers, but one side has to lose if they go to court.
Isn't the bigger issue that they haven't been actively enforcing the trademark since at least 2020? You have to enforce trademarks otherwise they lapse.
You can look at the trademark's registration in the USPTO site that was linked[1]. See the "Documents" tab. This one was first issued in ~2018, so would not need renewal until 2028.
You don't generally need to sue every infringer in order to keep your trademark. My understanding is it can vary by court and it gets a bit legally complex, and the final decision will depend on various factors (eg: [2]).
[1] for reference: https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87980831&caseType=SERIAL_...
[2] https://www.dbllawyers.com/can-i-lose-my-trademark-rights/
You don't generally need to sue every infringer in order to keep your trademark. My understanding is it can vary by court and it gets a bit legally complex, and the final decision will depend on various factors (eg: [2]).
[1] for reference: https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87980831&caseType=SERIAL_...
[2] https://www.dbllawyers.com/can-i-lose-my-trademark-rights/
[deleted]
How about two uppercase letter i each overlapping at opposing 45 degree angles?
[deleted]
Had a small existential crisis reading this - Mixer was birthed (rebranded) in 2017 and closed down in 2020.
I would also think
Apple owns X with OS X and the iPhone X.
Microsoft own Xbox's logo, with the console, store, game pass
Apple owns X with OS X and the iPhone X.
Microsoft own Xbox's logo, with the console, store, game pass
Mixer has been shut down in 2020.
It doesn't matter if it's a trademark nightmare... it's a branding nightmare.
Musk is showing the world that he got lucky with his previous ventures. His management of Twitter has been a display of poor management at every level.
If you were less than a year into your position as CEO of a company with revenue divided by half, ex-employees suing you, banned journalists from your platform in the middle of some half-thought-out free speech debate... would you not be fired?
Everything about this makes me think he's just too rich to be fired... anyone else would have been. He just owns too much to not be given any more chances.
Musk is showing the world that he got lucky with his previous ventures. His management of Twitter has been a display of poor management at every level.
If you were less than a year into your position as CEO of a company with revenue divided by half, ex-employees suing you, banned journalists from your platform in the middle of some half-thought-out free speech debate... would you not be fired?
Everything about this makes me think he's just too rich to be fired... anyone else would have been. He just owns too much to not be given any more chances.
> Everything about this makes me think he's just too rich to be fired... anyone else would have been.
Don't really like this framing of the problem - he owns a majority of voting shares, and he paid (or, rather, overpaid) mightily for that right. You can't really be "fired" from being an owner, and I'll note Musk is no longer CEO (and, sure, you can argue the new CEO was hired to be the fall girl/glass cliff example, but that was still her eyes-wide-open choice).
People wrung their hands about Zuckerberg as well (he also has a majority of voting shares of Facebook), but in retrospect that hand-wringing looked premature, at least from a shareholder perspective - Meta is nearly back at its peak and has tripled its stock price from late 2022.
Don't really like this framing of the problem - he owns a majority of voting shares, and he paid (or, rather, overpaid) mightily for that right. You can't really be "fired" from being an owner, and I'll note Musk is no longer CEO (and, sure, you can argue the new CEO was hired to be the fall girl/glass cliff example, but that was still her eyes-wide-open choice).
People wrung their hands about Zuckerberg as well (he also has a majority of voting shares of Facebook), but in retrospect that hand-wringing looked premature, at least from a shareholder perspective - Meta is nearly back at its peak and has tripled its stock price from late 2022.
> Don't really like this framing of the problem - he owns a majority of voting shares, and he paid (or, rather, overpaid) mightily for that right. You can't really be "fired" from being an owner.
This is basically what people mean by "too rich to fire". I don't think anyone is suggesting that if he wasn't a stakeholder, he'd keep his job solely because he had a lot of money. I think it fair to say that, if Twitter was a publicly traded company with a board of directors, Elon likely would have been fired by now. Or, at the very least, significantly reigned in.
This is basically what people mean by "too rich to fire". I don't think anyone is suggesting that if he wasn't a stakeholder, he'd keep his job solely because he had a lot of money. I think it fair to say that, if Twitter was a publicly traded company with a board of directors, Elon likely would have been fired by now. Or, at the very least, significantly reigned in.
In that case we should thank our stars it’s not a public company. Musk taking over twitter has done more to expose corruption and hypocrisy than almost anything else. The Twitter Leaks, balancing the algorithms, and even biasing them against the same people they used to be biased for (all while the same people that defended censorship now whine about it) pulled the masks off many in power.
Sure he might just drive it all into the ground, but the interim piloting has created so much good (whether some acknowledge it or not).
Sure he might just drive it all into the ground, but the interim piloting has created so much good (whether some acknowledge it or not).
That's bait.
I wonder if the lenders can push him out if/when Twitter stops making debt payments.
Yes, if you file for bankruptcy, debt creditors have rights senior to equity holders.
In that case, seems like there's a way to get back our lovably dysfunctional social network. Just gotta outlast their cash on hand.
Edit: Pre-acquisition Twitter bonds are trading at ~70 cents on the dollar. Seems like the acquisition financing isn't being traded yet -- banks trying to avoid facing write downs?
Edit: Pre-acquisition Twitter bonds are trading at ~70 cents on the dollar. Seems like the acquisition financing isn't being traded yet -- banks trying to avoid facing write downs?
According to Musk, Twitter is now at least break even. Who knows if that's true or not.
I would presume he means they're break-even in cashflow (aka the bills he actually wants to pay).
They are racking up massive debt to leaseholders, cloud providers...
They are racking up massive debt to leaseholders, cloud providers...
SpaceX and Tesla certainly involve luck, but it's way more than that. A huge element of the success of both companies is Elon managing to hire extremely bright and extremely hard working people for both companies. A huge element of that was the extremely ambitious and cool nature of what they're working on.
Is it possible he did a good job with his successful ventures, and a bad job with the unsuccessful ones?
I find it difficult to believe both SpaceX and Tesla was 100% pure luck and chance. Not even the devil is that lucky.
I find it difficult to believe both SpaceX and Tesla was 100% pure luck and chance. Not even the devil is that lucky.
SpaceX (at least) was a government venture, funded by DARPA and the CIA to enable a program that isn't too hard to figure out when you look at the people involved.
It's rather political, and debated within the clearance community. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career
It's rather political, and debated within the clearance community. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career
> In 2002, Griffin was president and COO of In-Q-Tel, a private enterprise funded by the CIA to identify and invest in companies developing cutting-edge technologies that serve national security interests. During this time, he met entrepreneur Elon Musk and accompanied him on a trip to Russia where they attempted to purchase ICBMs. The unsuccessful trip is credited as directly leading to the formation of SpaceX.[8] Griffin was an early advocate for Musk calling him a potential “Henry Ford for the rocket industry".
In-Q-Tel is basically DARPA but for the CIA, btw. It's private mostly to help obfuscate initiatives and cashflows, as that's been the SOP for a lot of US black ops kinda stuff for a while; see also: Blackwater aka Academi aka whatever-they're-called-now, plus other chunks of the contractor sphere. Wagner, the Russian mercs, were an attempt to duplicate that effort.
In-Q-Tel is basically DARPA but for the CIA, btw. It's private mostly to help obfuscate initiatives and cashflows, as that's been the SOP for a lot of US black ops kinda stuff for a while; see also: Blackwater aka Academi aka whatever-they're-called-now, plus other chunks of the contractor sphere. Wagner, the Russian mercs, were an attempt to duplicate that effort.
Every single thread where he's the topic, without exception, focuses at least in part on attempting to strip Musk of any accomplishment. He is allowed to have accomplished absolutely nothing. There must be zero redeeming value to his existence.
The extreme nature of the focused attacks on him today are fascinating to watch in terms of how angry, irrational mobs form on targets and attack until there's nothing left (and then they keep attacking, because some people are late to the party).
They attack his parenting.
They attack his business successes.
They attack his mental capabilities and rationality.
They attack his character.
They attack his family and background.
They lie about all of the above to whatever extent is necessary.
This goes on here, on Reddit, Twitter, wherever a discussion about Musk arises. The only difference between HN and Reddit on this topic is that HN is slightly more highbrow, although the same general attacks get repeated here as they do on Reddit.
Someone on Reddit yesterday was proclaiming that he "attached" himself to the SpaceX success and deserved zero credit for it. That rather nicely encompasses what's going on.
It's one of the biggest shit shows in the history of the Internet. It's embarrassing - as a human - to watch so many people desperately rolling around in the muck to participate.
The extreme nature of the focused attacks on him today are fascinating to watch in terms of how angry, irrational mobs form on targets and attack until there's nothing left (and then they keep attacking, because some people are late to the party).
They attack his parenting.
They attack his business successes.
They attack his mental capabilities and rationality.
They attack his character.
They attack his family and background.
They lie about all of the above to whatever extent is necessary.
This goes on here, on Reddit, Twitter, wherever a discussion about Musk arises. The only difference between HN and Reddit on this topic is that HN is slightly more highbrow, although the same general attacks get repeated here as they do on Reddit.
Someone on Reddit yesterday was proclaiming that he "attached" himself to the SpaceX success and deserved zero credit for it. That rather nicely encompasses what's going on.
It's one of the biggest shit shows in the history of the Internet. It's embarrassing - as a human - to watch so many people desperately rolling around in the muck to participate.
I guess it's an explainable reaction given it was the other way around for years.
Go back 2 or 3 years ago and the level of idolization and fanboyism was just incredibly high.
Tons of 'Elon is a genius' or 'Elon could fix [insert global issue]' like comments.
It was just really annoying for a lot of people. And now, with Musk's recent 'reversals', some of these people are becoming very vocal, swinging things at the other extreme.
Go back 2 or 3 years ago and the level of idolization and fanboyism was just incredibly high.
Tons of 'Elon is a genius' or 'Elon could fix [insert global issue]' like comments.
It was just really annoying for a lot of people. And now, with Musk's recent 'reversals', some of these people are becoming very vocal, swinging things at the other extreme.
> This goes on here, on Reddit, Twitter, wherever a discussion about Musk arises. The only difference between HN and Reddit on this topic is that HN is slightly more highbrow, although the same general attacks get repeated here as they do on Reddit.
My casual observation says that HN has become more "Reddit-Like" in terms of low quality and off-topic posting since the whole Reddit API/MOD debacle.
And yes, I see the irony. I get it.
My casual observation says that HN has become more "Reddit-Like" in terms of low quality and off-topic posting since the whole Reddit API/MOD debacle.
And yes, I see the irony. I get it.
> My casual observation says that HN has become more "Reddit-Like" in terms of low quality and off-topic posting
People have been saying this pretty much as long as HN has been around
People have been saying this pretty much as long as HN has been around
I think the more likely explanation is that the low-quality content has always been here, it's just more or less visible depending on which topics you visit and what's happening in the world.
This place was IMHO pretty toxic during the pandemic. It felt like half of the threads were some covid-related "controversies" and the other half was about whether or not WFH is a fundamental human right.
This place was IMHO pretty toxic during the pandemic. It felt like half of the threads were some covid-related "controversies" and the other half was about whether or not WFH is a fundamental human right.
These events caused major shifts in a very short time. Seems understandable that something so invasive as Covid and life-changing as work from home would be at the front of many people’s minds.
Yes, it's definitely understandable, just saying that the quality of comments around that time was IMHO pretty bad
Oh, come on.
The way he went from the fun, bold and ambitious guy most people liked, to the shadow of himself most people now hate is appaling. He used to promote tolerance, diversity and love (mostly), now he’s (mostly) into bullying, hate speech, authoritarianism, dictator ass-licking, parroting Kremlin propaganda, etc.
What a letdown.
Of course you can go the "morality is meaningless, the guy has highly successful businesses so he deserves respect" route.
Or you could figure out that a self-made genius that pushes nonsense like the hyperloop, rocket mass transportation, tunnels for taxis and terraforming mars to save humanity while denying climate change, is probably neither a genius nor self-made.
What a letdown.
Of course you can go the "morality is meaningless, the guy has highly successful businesses so he deserves respect" route.
Or you could figure out that a self-made genius that pushes nonsense like the hyperloop, rocket mass transportation, tunnels for taxis and terraforming mars to save humanity while denying climate change, is probably neither a genius nor self-made.
When did he deny climate change?
If you’re honest with yourself I think you’ll fine these are all caricatures you’ve created because he’s no longer politically aligned enough with you.
TDS has been replaced with EDS.
If you’re honest with yourself I think you’ll fine these are all caricatures you’ve created because he’s no longer politically aligned enough with you.
TDS has been replaced with EDS.
Regardless of whether you think Elon Musk is talented or not, I can't really agree that people hating on one of the richest and most influential people in the world constitutes one of "the biggest shit shows in the history of the internet".
We're talking about the same internet in which Facebook's algorithms contributed to violence against the Rohingya. What people think about Elon Musk is simply of no significance by comparison.
We're talking about the same internet in which Facebook's algorithms contributed to violence against the Rohingya. What people think about Elon Musk is simply of no significance by comparison.
The counter view is a case of resulting, where people evaluate Musk’s skill based on the results of one or two of his companies. This is also a poor way to evaluate if he is a good decision maker.
I do think his recent decisions have been quite poorly thought through, independent of the results. I suspect X/Twitter are going to get hammered by regulatory bodies worldwide because they are not meeting requirements set by eg FTC consent orders.
I do think his recent decisions have been quite poorly thought through, independent of the results. I suspect X/Twitter are going to get hammered by regulatory bodies worldwide because they are not meeting requirements set by eg FTC consent orders.
> Someone on Reddit yesterday was proclaiming that he "attached" himself to the SpaceX success and deserved zero credit for it.
Stealing credit for achievements that aren't truly yours is a very serious accusation.
> The extreme nature of the focused attacks on him today are fascinating to watch in terms of how angry, irrational mobs form on targets and attack
You seem concerned about discussion quality, but you can't debunk the accusations, all you have to contribute is "everyone I disagree with is irrational!"
Curious.
Stealing credit for achievements that aren't truly yours is a very serious accusation.
> The extreme nature of the focused attacks on him today are fascinating to watch in terms of how angry, irrational mobs form on targets and attack
You seem concerned about discussion quality, but you can't debunk the accusations, all you have to contribute is "everyone I disagree with is irrational!"
Curious.
The prevailing view was for quite some time that he was some kind of unique genius. Its hardly surprising to see some pushback when he publicly demonstrates that he's not quite a genius, and he attacks segments of society (the media, the left wing, people who like other social media, people who criticise him). There's a certain level of reaping what you sew there.
Musk took over Tesla a few months after the Model S got announced. By that time, one could expect that most of the development teams and roadmaps were well in place.
Except paypal, most of his "successful ventures" are just buying established companies and branding himself all over them.
That's what you do once you have money because time is more expensive.
> Musk is showing the world that he got lucky with his previous ventures.
1 dud
A few successes
It's really hard to tell to what extent it's luck versus skill. It'd be much easier to tell if we'd live for 10K years and he'd have started like 50 companies. If even 10 of those would've become wildly successful, whereas the mean baseline of other people who started 50 companies would be maybe 1 or 2 companies, then I'd argue that he didn't only get lucky. I'd argue there's also a skill component to it.
1 dud
A few successes
It's really hard to tell to what extent it's luck versus skill. It'd be much easier to tell if we'd live for 10K years and he'd have started like 50 companies. If even 10 of those would've become wildly successful, whereas the mean baseline of other people who started 50 companies would be maybe 1 or 2 companies, then I'd argue that he didn't only get lucky. I'd argue there's also a skill component to it.
SolarCity, Hyperloop, and Boring Company are obvious duds as well.
It's hard to say how many duds he had in the aughts, since they're probably well-buried at this point.
It's hard to say how many duds he had in the aughts, since they're probably well-buried at this point.
If I managed to do one Tesla or SpaceX in my entire lifetime, even 10k, I’d be extremely happy and very different from the entire population at large.
I don’t like Musk but I think the leftist vilification and dismissal bears all the sounds of people who have no idea how hard it is to build and maintain a successful company.
I don’t like Musk but I think the leftist vilification and dismissal bears all the sounds of people who have no idea how hard it is to build and maintain a successful company.
The whole discussion is about how much of those companies' success is attributable to Musk. I have no clue where the "leftist vilification" is coming from.
There has been a large cultural shift in how he is discussed in public. And the left has made him into an enemy, while the right has turned him into a hero… ish. He’s now part of the larger cultural wars, and as such it’s almost impossible not to have that creep into any discussion about him. And a big theme on the left is how he’s a fraud and only was able to achieve what he has because of his dads money. They don’t seem to realize that most startups that get lots of money still flop.
This discussion is not about cultural perceptions of Elon Musk. It is about how much of SpaceX and Tesla's success can be attributed to him. If you think cultural perceptions are why I categorized SolarCity, Boring Company, Hyperloop, and X.com as duds, please feel free to give specific criticism. Otherwise, the discussion is best helped by airing cultural grievances elsewhere.
What you’re stating is being discussed ad infinitum everywhere as part of the culture wars as one of the main talking points. You cannot separate it at this point. It’s like saying you’re trying to discuss whether Trump encouraged Jan 6 or not as some independent topic.
In a discussion about whether or not Trump built a wall at US's southern border one does not need to bring up Jan 6th at all.
These are in fact different tangential topics similar to how whether or not AOC likes Musk is tangential to whether or not Solar City was a dud of a company.
You need not like Bill Cosby to objectively state he had a long successful career.
This is hackernews not cable TV. You do not need to regurgitate "talking points".
These are in fact different tangential topics similar to how whether or not AOC likes Musk is tangential to whether or not Solar City was a dud of a company.
You need not like Bill Cosby to objectively state he had a long successful career.
This is hackernews not cable TV. You do not need to regurgitate "talking points".
> In a discussion about whether or not Trump built a wall at US's southern border one does not need to bring up Jan 6th at all.
That's not how that discussion would actually go. Need has nothing to do with it, and the same holds true with Musk. The detached attacks don't need to be brought up in regards to a discussion about Musk & SpaceX, and yet they are guaranteed to come up regardless.
There is no discussion today of any meaningful length that is going to happen on a major public forum (eg Reddit) regarding Trump's border wall where the events of January 6 do not come up as a prominent matter of discussion.
The reason this happens is because the target (Trump, Musk, whatever) triggers people to such an extreme emotional degree they can't control themselves properly, they can no longer think & express rationally. They have basically been trained into a hyper emotional response by the mob they participate with. It's some manner of one-upmanship, virtue signaling as competition: who can most greatly beat this target to death, using any means necessary.
That's not how that discussion would actually go. Need has nothing to do with it, and the same holds true with Musk. The detached attacks don't need to be brought up in regards to a discussion about Musk & SpaceX, and yet they are guaranteed to come up regardless.
There is no discussion today of any meaningful length that is going to happen on a major public forum (eg Reddit) regarding Trump's border wall where the events of January 6 do not come up as a prominent matter of discussion.
The reason this happens is because the target (Trump, Musk, whatever) triggers people to such an extreme emotional degree they can't control themselves properly, they can no longer think & express rationally. They have basically been trained into a hyper emotional response by the mob they participate with. It's some manner of one-upmanship, virtue signaling as competition: who can most greatly beat this target to death, using any means necessary.
In this context, the fact that he's had numerous dud companies does need to come up because it's actually very much on topic.
Let's reflect on how we got here.
1) xutopia is making the claim [1] (on a thread about how Twitter's rebrand could be a nightmare) that Musk's actions would've costed any other CEO their job.
2) mettamage countered with Musk has only had 1 dud company so far [2]
3) And that leads us to this oversized thread where yes Musk has had many dud companies and "only 1" isn't correct.
Whether or not Musk is correct on the Thai diver being a pedophile would not belong in this oversized thread though and as you may not have yet noticed; wasn't brought up. It is in fact possible to have a discussion on a forum (perhaps not major) without bringing up tangential points. Some people can control themselves and so far in this oversized thread they have; it's been very on point besides this meta discussion.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36861849
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36863091
Let's reflect on how we got here.
1) xutopia is making the claim [1] (on a thread about how Twitter's rebrand could be a nightmare) that Musk's actions would've costed any other CEO their job.
2) mettamage countered with Musk has only had 1 dud company so far [2]
3) And that leads us to this oversized thread where yes Musk has had many dud companies and "only 1" isn't correct.
Whether or not Musk is correct on the Thai diver being a pedophile would not belong in this oversized thread though and as you may not have yet noticed; wasn't brought up. It is in fact possible to have a discussion on a forum (perhaps not major) without bringing up tangential points. Some people can control themselves and so far in this oversized thread they have; it's been very on point besides this meta discussion.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36861849
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36863091
[deleted]
Both Tesla and SpaceX are successful almost entirely in buying out the work of other people and exploiting government programs. If you already had a bunch of money (thanks to being in the right place at the right time w/r/t PayPal) you too could have done it if you didn't care about anything other than your own aggrandizement
If the only criteria is that you had money from a prior successful company (Paypal in Elon’s case) to create the preeminent electric car company in the world, then why didn’t many thousands of other people achieve it as well? Why was there not more competition? Why did so many attempts to market electric cars fail before Tesla? The reason is that it is hard, and it takes a combination of both skill and luck to accomplish.
The reason is that no one was in a position to exploit the EV credit system because it didn't exist yet. Right place, right time, only made possible by having a bunch of money and zero qualms about exploiting that program.
Yeah. Same reason no-one is emulating Gates or Jobs right now. Their oportunity was related to their historical moment. It has passed. People will be in the right time and place for _other_ opportunities (see Zuckerberg, Bezos)
The argument is that everything was already in place for it to become the preeminent electric car company in the world; Musk simply had to buy it at the right time, which he did.
Now, that may be a skill in and of itself, but that's not a skill for innovation, it's a skill for timing markets.
Now, that may be a skill in and of itself, but that's not a skill for innovation, it's a skill for timing markets.
The Tesla model S was released before Elon arived. I don't doubt that his money helped but it seems fair to question whether that equates to Musk "creat[ing] the preeminent electric car company in the world"
That’s absolutely false. Your comment makes me strongly think you’ve never started a company or run one. Nothing is trivial no matter how much money you start with, ESPECIALLY if you’re doing something new.
I will give him credit in as much that he is an exceptional con man uniquely skilled at fleecing investors and moneyed nerds. Still, though, that hype machine couldn't have been built without his gobs of money and utter lack of scruples.
All the money in the world won’t get you relandable rockets or put EVs on the map unless you have talent.. to set direction/vision, make partnerships, find talent that wants to work with you, etc.
If money alone was enough we’d see more Teslas from places like Saudia Arabia. But we don’t.
If money alone was enough we’d see more Teslas from places like Saudia Arabia. But we don’t.
I don't think other governments are stupid enough to let their taxpayers float poorly made cars that keep exploding because the guy in charge keeps talking about self-driving functionality that will never arrive
Haven't we learned at this point that Hyerloop was never supposed to be successful? That, technically, it's success was screwing over Californian's by delaying train projects?
Hyperloop did not move the needle on CAHSR’s success or failure, so even by that metric it was a dud.
If you are interested in what successful ratfucking psyops looks like, check out Caltrans’s recent obsession with hydrogen trains.
If you are interested in what successful ratfucking psyops looks like, check out Caltrans’s recent obsession with hydrogen trains.
One thing to keep in mind is that Tesla and SpaceX were early successes and the rest are later failures. It is quite possible that he has lost his touch as he has gotten older and richer.
Or is suffering from a psychotic break. It is, I believe, pretty well know that he is a heavy user of ADHD medication. A business version of Paul Erdos.
[deleted]
I think you just have to look at the individual decisions he's made. For me, I keep going back to the time he made the Twitter employees literally print out their source code. (Not send a link to github repo, he made them physically print them out.) That is not something a competent leader would have asked for.
My first thought when I saw it prior to hearing about the change was that the icon failed to load for some reason.
It just looks like an error or failure and completely out of place with the rest of the site.
It just looks like an error or failure and completely out of place with the rest of the site.
> Musk is showing the world that he got lucky with his previous ventures.
Or maybe he's finally stretched himself too thin, isn't getting enough sleep, etc.
Or maybe he's finally stretched himself too thin, isn't getting enough sleep, etc.
too many mountains of cocaine, not enough bi-polar medication, et al
"the howard hughes effect"
"the howard hughes effect"
You don't believe in the 𝕏 utopia?
Who would fire him? He owns Twitter.
chaosbolt(8)
That's the thing with luck. It helps you when you succeed but it's your fault when you fail. Only the perfect are not lucky.
Patton? Luck merchant (Task Force Baum)
Eisenhower? Luck buffoon (kesserine pass)
Einstein? All luck (Cosmological constant, black holes perhaps)
With moronic clowns such as these it is truly a wonder that the Allies got anywhere.
Also, I think we should make it so if you own a company and it stops making money, it should be taken away from you.
Patton? Luck merchant (Task Force Baum)
Eisenhower? Luck buffoon (kesserine pass)
Einstein? All luck (Cosmological constant, black holes perhaps)
With moronic clowns such as these it is truly a wonder that the Allies got anywhere.
Also, I think we should make it so if you own a company and it stops making money, it should be taken away from you.
This is a weird comment.
Musk is showing himself to be, well, kind of stupid. We've seen him make moves that are obviously bad and didn't pay off. If you look a little bit deeper, you can see that he has a pattern of making bad decisions. He may also make some good ones, but isn't it more likely that "his" other companies (which he did not create) are succeeding despite him, not because of him? After all, many other smart and ambitious people work with him.
Musk is showing himself to be, well, kind of stupid. We've seen him make moves that are obviously bad and didn't pay off. If you look a little bit deeper, you can see that he has a pattern of making bad decisions. He may also make some good ones, but isn't it more likely that "his" other companies (which he did not create) are succeeding despite him, not because of him? After all, many other smart and ambitious people work with him.
Many other smart and ambitious people work for many people. At the least, you are giving him credit for attracting very smart and ambitious people. Not very many people can do that.
> At the least, you are giving him credit for attracting very smart and ambitious people. Not very many people can do that.
Er... fine. But ... much stupider people have had similar success. I don't think attracting ambition is a worthwhile trait on its own and it's not something I'm going to praise him for.
Actually, if I step back, I don't even think that's true. Again, he didn't create any of these companies, nor did he run them alone when he was CEO. Many very intelligent engineers joined companies he was running because they believed in the product. They may or may not have even heard of him when they joined a given company.
Er... fine. But ... much stupider people have had similar success. I don't think attracting ambition is a worthwhile trait on its own and it's not something I'm going to praise him for.
Actually, if I step back, I don't even think that's true. Again, he didn't create any of these companies, nor did he run them alone when he was CEO. Many very intelligent engineers joined companies he was running because they believed in the product. They may or may not have even heard of him when they joined a given company.
> Er... fine. But ... much stupider people have had similar success.
Have they? The number of people who have built a Tesla-size company is very small. The ones who have built a SpaceX-size and a Tesla-size one is minuscule.
Have they? The number of people who have built a Tesla-size company is very small. The ones who have built a SpaceX-size and a Tesla-size one is minuscule.
He was credited with "attracting very smart and ambitious people", not building those companies, and that's what I was referring to. I think it's debatable that he "built" those companies, but we should be specific when we're analyzing a person's qualities.
Luck is a term used by incompetent people to explain things that they don't understand.
From a financial point of view, the most consequential thing ever to happen to me was joining the right company at the right time. More or less total chance. Lots of people could say the same. (Though, some will give themselves an inappropriate amount of credit for it after the fact)
Luck (in a random chance context rather than a supernatural context) is real.
Luck (in a random chance context rather than a supernatural context) is real.
Doesn't it seem obviously wrong to suggest that things beyond an individual's control cannot have a significant impact on them?
What term do competent people use to explain things they don't understand?
They simply refrain from explaining things they don't understand.
“I don’t understand.”
Twitter's rebrand to X could also be a nightmare because it's fucking dumb.
This could have been soo much better.
Personally if he wanted to make an "everything app" I would have gone with making X an "exclusive" edition of twitter, i.e replacing twitter blue.
Twitter is a free app for the unwashed masses and X is the Exclusive App.... if you login to twitter with a X login you get the rebrand
Then add new features to X
Personally if he wanted to make an "everything app" I would have gone with making X an "exclusive" edition of twitter, i.e replacing twitter blue.
Twitter is a free app for the unwashed masses and X is the Exclusive App.... if you login to twitter with a X login you get the rebrand
Then add new features to X
Except he can't make an "everything app" because we're not in China. People don't want the "convenience" of being able to do everything in the same app because they rightfully fear monopolies and over-consolidation of major corporations, and they doubly fear the government and corporations creating a way-too-convenient method of collecting every detail, large and small, about one's life in a single app.
WeChat is what it is in China because it replicates (in a sense) how things are in Chinese society.
Also, X is fucking stupid.
WeChat is what it is in China because it replicates (in a sense) how things are in Chinese society.
Also, X is fucking stupid.
People don't fear this at all. They have their iphones, imessage, apple tv, apple pay. The only thing apple is missing is a social network (AFAIK they don't have one).
Apple makes a big point of highlighting their privacy features and pushing back against some government requests for exactly this reason; to allay fears about consolidation and overreach. I doubt Tim Cook is a passionate believer in privacy as a human right, but it's effective messaging so he pushes it.
Musk's approach is the polar opposite from Apple. A capricious and petulant owner who goes out of his way to appease racists and dictators is not someone most people are comfortable with handing a lot of control and information about their lives to.
Musk's approach is the polar opposite from Apple. A capricious and petulant owner who goes out of his way to appease racists and dictators is not someone most people are comfortable with handing a lot of control and information about their lives to.
Apple is a corporation. They could be lead by an entirely new executive team tomorrow if that's what the shareholders want.
I wouldn't do business with Musk personally, but I don't think most people view him the way you do.
In any case, we're talking about normies are comfortable with. They don't really consider any of this stuff.
I wouldn't do business with Musk personally, but I don't think most people view him the way you do.
In any case, we're talking about normies are comfortable with. They don't really consider any of this stuff.
> I doubt Tim Cook is a passionate believer in privacy as a human right
What makes you think this? Lots of tech people have this perspective, and lots of gay people understand this perspective at a very deep level (especially if older)
Just curious why you think what you think.
What makes you think this? Lots of tech people have this perspective, and lots of gay people understand this perspective at a very deep level (especially if older)
Just curious why you think what you think.
Tim Cook believes in all sorts of things....when he in the US/EU.
When he's sucking up to China, all the morals and values he ingrained by growing up a gay man in the American deep South quickly and rather conveniently go right out the window.
When he's sucking up to China, all the morals and values he ingrained by growing up a gay man in the American deep South quickly and rather conveniently go right out the window.
The market share of the iphone is about 20%. So I think your comparison falls short with the very first item.
I am okay, to be totally vendor locked in the apple-ecosystem, because Androids market share is so much higher. If the iPhone fails to be a good product I will just switch. I am okay, to be totally vendor locked in gcp, because aws is a thing...
I am okay, to be totally vendor locked in the apple-ecosystem, because Androids market share is so much higher. If the iPhone fails to be a good product I will just switch. I am okay, to be totally vendor locked in gcp, because aws is a thing...
In the US, the country of origin for both iOS and Android, iPhone market share is closer to 60%
Alternatively: we already have an "everything app". And, unfortunately, it's Facebook.
> People don't want the "convenience" of being able to do everything in the same app
I really really really wish this were true but It is not. People take the path of least resistance and companies have been working on superconducting these paths for years.
I really really really wish this were true but It is not. People take the path of least resistance and companies have been working on superconducting these paths for years.
> WeChat is what it is in China because it replicates (in a sense) how things are in Chinese society.
I put out a version of this that is WeChat is the way it is because of the way China regulates its markets. Chinese regulators prioritize e.g. surveillance so that it makes sense for them to have fewer competitors that do more things. (Note that they do not regulate their hardware markets this way, so there are many more companies operating in that space.)
Regulators and market incentives are different outside of China, so there is no pressure to end up with an everything app.
I put out a version of this that is WeChat is the way it is because of the way China regulates its markets. Chinese regulators prioritize e.g. surveillance so that it makes sense for them to have fewer competitors that do more things. (Note that they do not regulate their hardware markets this way, so there are many more companies operating in that space.)
Regulators and market incentives are different outside of China, so there is no pressure to end up with an everything app.
> to do everything in the same app because they rightfully fear monopolies and over-consolidation of major corporations
How is it different than Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc?
How is it different than Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc?
The difference is that none of the corporations you listed have products that are effectively mandatory to use for one to exist in modern society.
Helpful, yes. But mandatory? No.
In China, it's borderline impossible to do anything if you don't have WeChat. It centralizes everything related to personal and professional life in China.
Your rideshare app is not sharing data with your fitness app, or with your laundry service app. In China, there's 1 app. It centralizes everything.
Helpful, yes. But mandatory? No.
In China, it's borderline impossible to do anything if you don't have WeChat. It centralizes everything related to personal and professional life in China.
Your rideshare app is not sharing data with your fitness app, or with your laundry service app. In China, there's 1 app. It centralizes everything.
Isn't it a little more complicated though?
WeChat has turned into its own operating system offering and app store offering mini-programs that other companies can create.
These mini-programs do work through WeChat and Tencent probably has all the data that goes into or through these mini-programs but couldn't the same be said about our current situation?
In a way isn't that just like Android or iOS itself?
WeChat has turned into its own operating system offering and app store offering mini-programs that other companies can create.
These mini-programs do work through WeChat and Tencent probably has all the data that goes into or through these mini-programs but couldn't the same be said about our current situation?
In a way isn't that just like Android or iOS itself?
You listed multiple companies. That's the difference.
We debate Android vs. iOS (vs. awesome Linux shenanigans), or Microsoft vs. Apple vs. Linux. Those are choices. Most of the market is essentially duopolies, but that's a different issue than a pure monopoly.
We debate Android vs. iOS (vs. awesome Linux shenanigans), or Microsoft vs. Apple vs. Linux. Those are choices. Most of the market is essentially duopolies, but that's a different issue than a pure monopoly.
They are not owned by Musk, and they support government censorship so they get a pass from many here
Apple and Microsoft supports
Goverment censorship?
Sure under the nebulous charges of "hate Speech" and "Disinformation"
99% of the population doesn’t care about any of that. They will use whatever works best
We fear monopolies, but most people clearly don't. The eagerly submit to Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc. And they cheer when one of them adds a new payment system to their platform.
china is not the only nation where something like this exists
I also think you massively over estimate the average persons fear of monopolies over convenience.
I also think you massively over estimate the average persons fear of monopolies over convenience.
Where else has something compatible to WeChat?
Or he could have just renamed the company to "X" and left the current Twitter product as "Twitter." All his hypothetical fancy new stuff could get its own branding (or not) but he still gets the X. The "Twitter" branding could be subservient to the company branding.
Like Alphabet, or Meta, or Microsoft, or countless others...
It really seems he just wants to start fresh and kill the Twitter brand immediately regardless of the short term cost. It's a strange play indeed, and it's hard to guess why he wants to disassociate with the brand so strongly.
Like Alphabet, or Meta, or Microsoft, or countless others...
It really seems he just wants to start fresh and kill the Twitter brand immediately regardless of the short term cost. It's a strange play indeed, and it's hard to guess why he wants to disassociate with the brand so strongly.
It has provided me endless entertainment in meat space because I cross my arms to form an "X" every time I talk about X.
Tim Apples even saw this coming and had an emoji in place, Man Crossed Arms.
Tim Apples even saw this coming and had an emoji in place, Man Crossed Arms.
You're joking but still… that emoji is from Japan, where people use this sign to mean "not allowed" (だめ).
That's pretty much what Twitter means today too
Throwing away a brand almost everyone has heard of and verbs that have become common in spoken language because you own x.com is just incredibly stupid stuff.
The guy is surrounded by yes men.
> The guy is surrounded by yes men.
Or maybe he just doesn't care when people tell him "no".
Or maybe he just doesn't care when people tell him "no".
Or maybe he enjoys when people tell him "no" and he does it anyway, because he wants.
This will not age well.
The letter X, brought to you today by Mr X (Elon Musk).
Everyone seems to be missing the interesting part here.
It's that Twitter is using a generic Monotype font letter for their brand.
Which would mean that their brand will not be able to be trademarked and thus anyone could use it to associate their dodgy product with the main site. So I wouldn't worry about Meta, Microsoft etc but about the insane number of X ripoffs we are going to see in the future e.g. X crypto coin, X bots.
It's that Twitter is using a generic Monotype font letter for their brand.
Which would mean that their brand will not be able to be trademarked and thus anyone could use it to associate their dodgy product with the main site. So I wouldn't worry about Meta, Microsoft etc but about the insane number of X ripoffs we are going to see in the future e.g. X crypto coin, X bots.
Monotype Executive Creative Director Phil Garnham Executive told The Messenger in a statement that the company “can confirm that whilst it is similar, this is not the capital X glyph from Monotype’s “Special Alphabets 4.”
You've confused copyright with trademark here.
Trademarks can be word mark or a design mark.
Musk can't trademark the letter X and he can't trademark an existing font letter.
Musk can't trademark the letter X and he can't trademark an existing font letter.
Trademarks are comprised of existing fonts all the time.
I think the "single letter" part is important here. AFAIK trademarks can't be too simple and generic. Sort of like how Intel couldn't trademark 286/386/486, so instead of 586 we got Pentium.
No, it's not important. It's just wrong, as clearly illustrated by the article we're all discussing.
Microsoft applied for, and obtained, a trademark for "x". Companies do this all the time. Companies also trademark numbers all the time. Dale Earnhardt trademarked the number "1": https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=75439039&caseType=SERIAL_...
Intel lost their trademark battle because they didn't attempt to register the trademark until the 486 - more than a decade after the numbers were in common use by other chip manufactures.
It has nothing to do with whether the mark is simple.
Microsoft applied for, and obtained, a trademark for "x". Companies do this all the time. Companies also trademark numbers all the time. Dale Earnhardt trademarked the number "1": https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=75439039&caseType=SERIAL_...
Intel lost their trademark battle because they didn't attempt to register the trademark until the 486 - more than a decade after the numbers were in common use by other chip manufactures.
It has nothing to do with whether the mark is simple.
Are you sure it is the letter and not the graphic that is trademarked?
It does say "Standard Character Claim: No" which (as best I can tell from [1]) means it is the particular form of that letter[2], not the letter itself, which is trademarked.
[1] https://smallbusiness.chron.com/standard-character-claim-mea...
[2] Although it is a pretty generic "1".
[1] https://smallbusiness.chron.com/standard-character-claim-mea...
[2] Although it is a pretty generic "1".
The specimen on that application are clearly more than just the numeral ‘1’. There’s obviously design there. This does not appear to be equivalent.
I thought that Peugeot had a trademark on car models of the form X0Y (where X and Y were single digits), resulting in the Porsche 901 being renamed to the 911 that we now know.
[deleted]
Apple trademark the word Apple.
In this case the entire logo previously exists though.
I'm not sure similar cases exist but it's similar as using an old public domain logo as your own. Would that be enforceable?
I'm not sure similar cases exist but it's similar as using an old public domain logo as your own. Would that be enforceable?
Now I'm curious where the original Apple logo came from…
(And now I know: designed by Ron Wayne, so not public domain at all; and I'd forgotten about the ribbons with the text)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing_of_Apple_Inc.#/media...
(And now I know: designed by Ron Wayne, so not public domain at all; and I'd forgotten about the ribbons with the text)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing_of_Apple_Inc.#/media...
Of course you can.
3M, Scotch, Crate & Barrel, Lufthansa and Jeep all have legitimate trademarked word marks that consist of nothing more than their name written in Helvetica.
3M, Scotch, Crate & Barrel, Lufthansa and Jeep all have legitimate trademarked word marks that consist of nothing more than their name written in Helvetica.
And every single one of those is in the Public Domain, because they don't meet the Threshold of Originality for copyright purposes.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:3M_wordmark.svg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scotch-logo.svg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crate_and_barrel_log...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lufthansa_Logo_2018....
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jeep_logo.svg
For more info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wordmark
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Threshold_of_orig...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:3M_wordmark.svg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scotch-logo.svg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crate_and_barrel_log...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lufthansa_Logo_2018....
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jeep_logo.svg
For more info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wordmark
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Threshold_of_orig...
Which is irrelevant to whether or not they are valid as trademarks
That's a word mark... it doesn't matter what font it's in because the mark relates to the words, not a specific design of the words in display...
The word mark registers the word as a trademark.
The typographical and design treatment of the word can have separate trademark protection.
That can be true whether or not a design mark is registered.
If you started a car company called ‘Beep’ and write its name in olive green Helvetica Black, Jeep might struggle to make a case about your name’s similarity to their word mark (beep is a different word and rhyming is not a crime), but they for sure could take you to court for stealing their trade dress.
The typographical and design treatment of the word can have separate trademark protection.
That can be true whether or not a design mark is registered.
If you started a car company called ‘Beep’ and write its name in olive green Helvetica Black, Jeep might struggle to make a case about your name’s similarity to their word mark (beep is a different word and rhyming is not a crime), but they for sure could take you to court for stealing their trade dress.
So rather than make the point that the use in helvetica is captured in the word mark (it isn't) you instead add trade dress into this??
Not in the word mark registration, sure. But registration is not the whole of trademark law is it?
‘Word mark’ is also just a term of art in graphic design referring to a logo consisting of just text - another word for logotype. Should I have said logotype instead?
‘Word mark’ is also just a term of art in graphic design referring to a logo consisting of just text - another word for logotype. Should I have said logotype instead?
It's captured in the trade dress - that's all you had to say. You don't have to say its captured in the word mark, because it isn't!
I dunno, some guy named Carl trademarked the letter X: https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=90595369&caseSearchType=U...
Why can’t Elon?
I’m not aware of any existing font letter exception.
Why can’t Elon?
I’m not aware of any existing font letter exception.
A logo is a trademark
But in this case the logo is a character that existed before hand. Nothing was designed or created, an existing typeface is being used as a logo.
Trademarks don't have to be original. It's very common for a mark to be just a word or words written in a standard typeface. Perhaps you are thinking of copyrights?
People are hopelessly confused in this area, which is intentional FUD by the "intellectual property" advocates. People, even tech enthusiasts on a platform like this have no idea what the origin and purpose of 1) copyright, 2) trademarks and 3) patents are, even though they are very distinct from each other and even more distinct from the oft-imagined purpose of protecting the company's creative whatever. The overall original purpose of all these laws pointed towards the interests of the public, not the interests of some "intellectual property" owner, similar to protecting actual ownership rights.
The original purpose of trademarks is to prevent consumer confusion. That's it. It's not to protect the profits of a company. It's not to reward creativity and hard design work.
The original purpose of patents is to encourage disclosing new innovative ideas in order that others can build on top of the invention after having read the patent text (and in exchange for revealing how the innovation works, the inventor gets exclusive rights for a set time, but this is an instrument in achieving the former main purpose). Similarly, copyright incentivizes creative output. (But it only protects the actual expression, not the underlying general ideas etc.)
The original purpose of trademarks is to prevent consumer confusion. That's it. It's not to protect the profits of a company. It's not to reward creativity and hard design work.
The original purpose of patents is to encourage disclosing new innovative ideas in order that others can build on top of the invention after having read the patent text (and in exchange for revealing how the innovation works, the inventor gets exclusive rights for a set time, but this is an instrument in achieving the former main purpose). Similarly, copyright incentivizes creative output. (But it only protects the actual expression, not the underlying general ideas etc.)
𝕏 - it's just Unicode
Aren’t all those "Company Name" in Helvetica trademarks?
I loved how American Airlines and Apparel both used Helvetica.
These days, the one I find shocking is Monday.com and Slack. Both have names in lowercase black Circular, their logos use pill-shaped elements in similar shades of primary colors, and they're both in the business productivity space. The branding is so close you'd swear they're sibling products like IntelliJ and CLion.
These days, the one I find shocking is Monday.com and Slack. Both have names in lowercase black Circular, their logos use pill-shaped elements in similar shades of primary colors, and they're both in the business productivity space. The branding is so close you'd swear they're sibling products like IntelliJ and CLion.
[deleted]
Redrawing a font design outline from scratch is fair game (fortunately or unfortunaly depending on who you are).
xHamster and many similar are already out there. Famously referenced in the How To Uninstall McAfee Antivirus vid.
Gotta give it to Elon for going into uncharted territory once again.
X WDV
Most people would probably agree that Musk made some very bad and rookie-looking decisions since acquiring Twitter. Also he has said a lot of very controversial things in the last 1-2 years.
Before that he arguably was a lot more well respected as an entrepreneur - keeping a lower profile and building a couple of extremely successful businesses in parallel.
My big question that I’m still searching for an answer to: Did he drastically change as a person in the last couple of years? Or was he just “lucky” to build SpaceX and Tesla into tremendous successes? Or is he still a genius and all of us simply can’t see how he’s making Twitter into the next big success in his CV?
If he did change as a person - why? What happened? Bad breakup? Drug abuse? Depression? Too much self confidence? Too much stress for too long? Something else?
Before that he arguably was a lot more well respected as an entrepreneur - keeping a lower profile and building a couple of extremely successful businesses in parallel.
My big question that I’m still searching for an answer to: Did he drastically change as a person in the last couple of years? Or was he just “lucky” to build SpaceX and Tesla into tremendous successes? Or is he still a genius and all of us simply can’t see how he’s making Twitter into the next big success in his CV?
If he did change as a person - why? What happened? Bad breakup? Drug abuse? Depression? Too much self confidence? Too much stress for too long? Something else?
It's been clear for a while that Musk has had these sorts of issues. There's the infamous pedo guy incident stemming from Musk's unwanted attempts to help in the Thai cave rescue. Before then, there were quite a few reports during the early ramp up for Tesla Model 3 about several of Musk's bad ideas re car production. There were also several reports that SpaceX was only as successful as it was because it had a COO who could insulate the company from Musk's antics.
So it's been clear for at least a half dozen years or so that a successful Musk company needs a team to manage Musk and keep him from unnecessary interference in the company, but it may have required paying more attention to what he did. What changed when he bought Twitter is that he is now articulating a vision that is far less comfortable for many people ("stop banning fascists" is rather less inspiring than "I want to live on Mars"), and also, many of the failures of his micromanagement are far more visible to the general public on a large social media platform than a low-volume rocket or (at the time) auto manufacturer.
So it's been clear for at least a half dozen years or so that a successful Musk company needs a team to manage Musk and keep him from unnecessary interference in the company, but it may have required paying more attention to what he did. What changed when he bought Twitter is that he is now articulating a vision that is far less comfortable for many people ("stop banning fascists" is rather less inspiring than "I want to live on Mars"), and also, many of the failures of his micromanagement are far more visible to the general public on a large social media platform than a low-volume rocket or (at the time) auto manufacturer.
There is no change you should be looking for. This is who he is, and it doesn't take a lot of digging to see it. You, like most of us, just weren't looking closely at what he was doing before the last couple years.
It's akin to Rudy Giuliani [1]. Musk was always this way but it wasn't the fore-front when everybody was enthusiastic about electric cars.
It's similar to the quote "If Jeffrey Dahmer ran a 4.3, we'd call it an 'eating disorder.'".
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=mXQuto1fMp4
It's similar to the quote "If Jeffrey Dahmer ran a 4.3, we'd call it an 'eating disorder.'".
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=mXQuto1fMp4
Go read about the first X.com/PayPal debacle.
This is not the first time he's done this... stuck his fingers in, shouted at people, pushed his weight around, and Dunning-Kruger'd something to the point of failure. In that case, the board turfed him, and Peter Thiel fixed the problem.
He's grinding on an old (20+ years) obsession, down to the name of the 'product'.
As I said about this yesterday, Musk's success was a product of the economic situation from 2008->2022, when interest rates were insanely low, QE/stimulus was going crazy, Silicon Valley profits sky high and endlessly growing, and investors were willing to throw money at stuff like this.
With rates higher, investors will have other places to put their money, debt is more expensive, and people like Musk will find themselves standing naked on the beach as the tide goes out.
This is not the first time he's done this... stuck his fingers in, shouted at people, pushed his weight around, and Dunning-Kruger'd something to the point of failure. In that case, the board turfed him, and Peter Thiel fixed the problem.
He's grinding on an old (20+ years) obsession, down to the name of the 'product'.
As I said about this yesterday, Musk's success was a product of the economic situation from 2008->2022, when interest rates were insanely low, QE/stimulus was going crazy, Silicon Valley profits sky high and endlessly growing, and investors were willing to throw money at stuff like this.
With rates higher, investors will have other places to put their money, debt is more expensive, and people like Musk will find themselves standing naked on the beach as the tide goes out.
I think he’s upset that he was forced to buy the company and is actively running it into the ground.
blatantly wrong
It’s not like the very first thing Musk did was dismantle the verification system… even a tiered verification system would have made it less blatant that Musk is destroying Twitter.
Word on the street is that Grimes got him into some serious drugs that has amplified his behavior.
As Rain Falls said in RDR2: "People don't change, they just become more of who they really are."
I will argue with your statement that “he was respected as an entrepreneur.” It is arguable, and this weasel word forms the basis for your subsequent argument. It’s wrong. The question is “respected by whom.” I do not believe that anyone who respected him for entrepreneurship beforehand now disrespects him as an entrepreneur.
I do believe that people who marginally understood his work but have vested interests in the existing structure, including “news” orgs, reporters, political hacks, and direct competitors, have tried to create controversy and confusion around Musk.
Of course this would be expected to happen, and those gossipers and murmurers who can be influential will be among the uninformed.
I do believe that people who marginally understood his work but have vested interests in the existing structure, including “news” orgs, reporters, political hacks, and direct competitors, have tried to create controversy and confusion around Musk.
Of course this would be expected to happen, and those gossipers and murmurers who can be influential will be among the uninformed.
> I do not believe that anyone who respected him for entrepreneurship beforehand now disrespects him as an entrepreneur.
You can count me in that bucket. I didn't like some of what I heard from Tesla, mostly about the working hours. But I genuinely believe he was driven by a desire to do Hard Stuff that traditional organizations refused to do, and inspired a lot of smart people to come along and try to make stuff happen.
Now I'm convinced he's just a drug addict, or the drugs have done enough damage to his brain over time that it's noticeable now.
You can count me in that bucket. I didn't like some of what I heard from Tesla, mostly about the working hours. But I genuinely believe he was driven by a desire to do Hard Stuff that traditional organizations refused to do, and inspired a lot of smart people to come along and try to make stuff happen.
Now I'm convinced he's just a drug addict, or the drugs have done enough damage to his brain over time that it's noticeable now.
I fail to understand how these could have been the results of vested interests from existing structures, and not Musk's questionable behavior:
- insulting a kid saving cave-diver a pedo;
- getting into a buying agreement with Twitter's shareholders, as a "joke";
- repeatedly asserting that FSD is a solved problem, and will be production ready in 6 months, for 6 years;
- repeatedly claiming to be free speech, but continuously enforcing politically backed censorship over Twitter;
- refusing to pay Twitter' suppliers.
- insulting a kid saving cave-diver a pedo;
- getting into a buying agreement with Twitter's shareholders, as a "joke";
- repeatedly asserting that FSD is a solved problem, and will be production ready in 6 months, for 6 years;
- repeatedly claiming to be free speech, but continuously enforcing politically backed censorship over Twitter;
- refusing to pay Twitter' suppliers.
One must recognize that virtually every human action can be hyperbolically represented. That hyperbole will resonant with some people on its surface. Others, from a perspective of experience, knowledge, priorities: they will add a tolerance. Some will add a lot. Personally, none of what you’ve mentioned even causes me to pause. This is massively subject to information bias and philosophy. Some things are “ho-hum,” others are not.
But the approach of “I will speak for all of us and take the liberty of summarizing and manufacturing a consensus” is too far. I object. I bet the needle has barely moved, and if it has that’s largely because the media is flooding the zone on normies who never really cared anyway.
But the approach of “I will speak for all of us and take the liberty of summarizing and manufacturing a consensus” is too far. I object. I bet the needle has barely moved, and if it has that’s largely because the media is flooding the zone on normies who never really cared anyway.
Normal people: "Musk, please stop all this weird twitter stuff about calling cave divers pedos and wasting resources on makeshift submarines. We really like the vision behind Tesla and SpaceX and want our cool scifi CEO back!"
Musk Fanboys: "One must recognize that virtually every human action [...]"
Musk Fanboys: "One must recognize that virtually every human action [...]"
If your normal is buzzfeed, boingboing, CNN, and Reddit politics, and false emerald mine innuendo, just accept that you’ve given up in life.
I feel like you could probably do a better baseless ad hominem than "you probably watch the news and goto websites".
No one even mentions Google X which rebranded to just X years ago. Clearly it’s been effective that no one even points this out. Yet another winning project.
It's full of X brands. "Thanks to Microsoft" is kinda arbitrary of the article.
I mean "Twitter Videos" are now "X Videos". "The Twitter Files", this series of "investigative" threads... are now "The X Files" (lol).
"Direct Messages" will now be referred to as DirectX I guess, or I don't know.
X is a letter.
It's Roman number ten.
It's in millions of brands around the world.
It also stands for "X Rated", as in containing excessive violence and nudity. It stands for pornography in some context.
It's unsearchable, and barely speakable, as in it's unclear already when you say "X" if you mean Twitter or Elon's son or whatever.
What is he doing? We can ask but I doubt he knows himself.
I mean "Twitter Videos" are now "X Videos". "The Twitter Files", this series of "investigative" threads... are now "The X Files" (lol).
"Direct Messages" will now be referred to as DirectX I guess, or I don't know.
X is a letter.
It's Roman number ten.
It's in millions of brands around the world.
It also stands for "X Rated", as in containing excessive violence and nudity. It stands for pornography in some context.
It's unsearchable, and barely speakable, as in it's unclear already when you say "X" if you mean Twitter or Elon's son or whatever.
What is he doing? We can ask but I doubt he knows himself.
As for what he's doing, I think it's pretty transparent. He thinks Xs are really, really cool. And perhaps that bird-themes aren't very cool. He loves the idea of an everything app 'like they have in Asia'. And he's addicted to Twitter enough that he got stuck buying it.
So now we have this insane situation where he's going to throw away a strong brand that has an outsized influence in global media by converting it to become the do-everything app, and rename it to his favourite, cool letter. I don't think there's a secret plan beyond that.
I have no idea why he didn't just buy Twitter, keep it strong, and then leverage it to push a do-everything app (that could be called X for all anyone cares).
So now we have this insane situation where he's going to throw away a strong brand that has an outsized influence in global media by converting it to become the do-everything app, and rename it to his favourite, cool letter. I don't think there's a secret plan beyond that.
I have no idea why he didn't just buy Twitter, keep it strong, and then leverage it to push a do-everything app (that could be called X for all anyone cares).
> keep it strong
My theory is that he is desperate. He was forced to buy it. The interest from his loans to buy Twitter are estimated at a billion a year - and now interest rates are high so he can’t swap them for cheaper loans. That’s not an insignificant amount of money even for someone like him.
Thus his cutting cost to the bone, even refusing to play bills/rent for as long as possible, and all the harebrained ideas about what to do with Twitter - clearly staying the course is not acceptable since Twitter turned a profit I think only twice in its entire existence; both times where during the pandemic.
My theory is that he is desperate. He was forced to buy it. The interest from his loans to buy Twitter are estimated at a billion a year - and now interest rates are high so he can’t swap them for cheaper loans. That’s not an insignificant amount of money even for someone like him.
Thus his cutting cost to the bone, even refusing to play bills/rent for as long as possible, and all the harebrained ideas about what to do with Twitter - clearly staying the course is not acceptable since Twitter turned a profit I think only twice in its entire existence; both times where during the pandemic.
He wasn't forced to buy Twitter. He was forced to complete the sale he insisted he be allowed to start.
But the changes in the market were not entirely against him. It's not that interest rates are high so that he cannot refinance. He had semi-floating rate (floats up to a maximum), so refinancing would never be necessary. It is currently pegged to the highest level. But it is still locked in at a much lower rate than the market rate.
And a billion is less of an estimate than a rounding. The amount of the loan, the interest rate, etc. are all public knowledge because he had to file the terms and contracts with the SEC.
Meanwhile, I'm not convinced it's "not an insignificant amount of money" is the appropriate phrasing. It's a lot of money to him, but certainly something he can afford. Jeff Bezos famously put that much each quarter (so 4x the rate) into Blue Origin.
But the changes in the market were not entirely against him. It's not that interest rates are high so that he cannot refinance. He had semi-floating rate (floats up to a maximum), so refinancing would never be necessary. It is currently pegged to the highest level. But it is still locked in at a much lower rate than the market rate.
And a billion is less of an estimate than a rounding. The amount of the loan, the interest rate, etc. are all public knowledge because he had to file the terms and contracts with the SEC.
Meanwhile, I'm not convinced it's "not an insignificant amount of money" is the appropriate phrasing. It's a lot of money to him, but certainly something he can afford. Jeff Bezos famously put that much each quarter (so 4x the rate) into Blue Origin.
> Meanwhile, I'm not convinced it's "not an insignificant amount of money" is the appropriate phrasing. It's a lot of money to him, but certainly something he can afford. Jeff Bezos famously put that much each quarter (so 4x the rate) into Blue Origin.
Still the billion a year is paid out to the banks and not used to run Twitter.
I wonder how much Twitter is making/losing now. Sure they cut a lot of staff but income must be in the toilet with ad revenues down due to advertisers getting cold feet and now rate limits further reducing the number of eyeballs.
Still the billion a year is paid out to the banks and not used to run Twitter.
I wonder how much Twitter is making/losing now. Sure they cut a lot of staff but income must be in the toilet with ad revenues down due to advertisers getting cold feet and now rate limits further reducing the number of eyeballs.
> My theory is that he is desperate. He was forced to buy it.
Yeah, and now people are deriding him for that, which makes no sense. As far as I know, he made an offer, had to publicly announce it beforehand (due to law), then the stock market tanked, making the Twitter purchase nearly unaffordable for him. Then Twitter was loaded with massive debt. Very bad luck. But people hate him so they are satisfied with any misfortune he may have.
Yeah, and now people are deriding him for that, which makes no sense. As far as I know, he made an offer, had to publicly announce it beforehand (due to law), then the stock market tanked, making the Twitter purchase nearly unaffordable for him. Then Twitter was loaded with massive debt. Very bad luck. But people hate him so they are satisfied with any misfortune he may have.
Uh no.
He purchased a huge amount of twitter stock, and simultaneously made the public offer at like 4x twitters current stock value. Twitter pumped on the news, which was exactly Musks plan.
The stock market crash did not all of a sudden make twitter worth next to nothing on the offer. Musk was attempting to pump and dump the stock, and it backfired on him.
Even at the “rainbows and unicorns” drug induced tech stock valuations we’ve been seeing lately, twitter wasn’t worth 1/3 what musk offered to buy it at.
The stock market tanking has literally nothing to do with why this was a bad deal.
When you’re a public company and some coked off his ass idiot billionaire offers you 3x your companies current already highly inflated value, you are essentially forced by the shareholders to sell.
He purchased a huge amount of twitter stock, and simultaneously made the public offer at like 4x twitters current stock value. Twitter pumped on the news, which was exactly Musks plan.
The stock market crash did not all of a sudden make twitter worth next to nothing on the offer. Musk was attempting to pump and dump the stock, and it backfired on him.
Even at the “rainbows and unicorns” drug induced tech stock valuations we’ve been seeing lately, twitter wasn’t worth 1/3 what musk offered to buy it at.
The stock market tanking has literally nothing to do with why this was a bad deal.
When you’re a public company and some coked off his ass idiot billionaire offers you 3x your companies current already highly inflated value, you are essentially forced by the shareholders to sell.
> He purchased a huge amount of twitter stock, and simultaneously made the public offer at like 4x twitters current stock value.
That's a lie. See
https://images.app.goo.gl/see6HtsjsuSZMioP9
That's a lie. See
https://images.app.goo.gl/see6HtsjsuSZMioP9
> Yeah, and now people are deriding him for that
People have been mocking him for the price, the no-due-diligence clause, and other aspects of the contract since they became public. While later movement of the stock market may have made it even worse for him, it was a ridiculous deal, on its face, at the time negotiated (and even worse for Musk as a buyer given his public comments about Twitter.)
People have been mocking him for the price, the no-due-diligence clause, and other aspects of the contract since they became public. While later movement of the stock market may have made it even worse for him, it was a ridiculous deal, on its face, at the time negotiated (and even worse for Musk as a buyer given his public comments about Twitter.)
How was it a ridiculous deal at the time? He paid what the company was worth just a few months before. I think it is normal for acquisitions to be higher than the current stock price. Initially it wasn't even clear whether the deal would go through. Had his offer been significantly lower, he may have not succeeded.
https://images.app.goo.gl/see6HtsjsuSZMioP9
https://images.app.goo.gl/see6HtsjsuSZMioP9
I think he's cultivated that negative reaction himself; he just can't help himself. Once upon a time, his reputation was primarily as the action man heavily driving forward key industries. There might've been a few "he's just the figurehead, others do the work despite him" sorts on here, but mostly sentiment on a tech site would've been favourable. Hell, years back, I thought he had a decent claim on Person of the Year.
He's really gone out of his way since to polarise the public, for limited benefit.
He's really gone out of his way since to polarise the public, for limited benefit.
> I think he's cultivated that negative reaction himself;
No, my point was that all the derision was undeserved and you didn't provide evidence to the contrary. Journalists just hate him.
No, my point was that all the derision was undeserved and you didn't provide evidence to the contrary. Journalists just hate him.
Doing it this way instead of your suggestion seems to be garnering a lot of free press. Many companies would pay large sums of money for the reach he's gotten just for changing the logo to a letter (and it's yet to be seen whether the change is permanent, or just a temporary publicity play).
He can get easy press doing anything including with the route I'd outlined. Meta got global coverage for Threads without sacrificing Instagram or Facebook.
Free press - most of it negative.
This is textbook Management by Logo. When you're out of ideas you change the name/logo and now suddenly you're dynamic forward-looking innovative etc.
Except not really. Management by Logo is like respraying a car engine because you don't know how to fix it. There's a fair-to-good chance you'll make things more broken rather than less.
Musk bought Twitter (RIP...) because he wanted to use it as a propaganda outlet for his own crazy Randian/Trumpish ideals. It was never meant to continue as a free and open discussion site for humans.
Musk appears to have plans to spray AI and other magic dead chickens all over everything to create a new automated kind of propaganda outlet.
I suspect that won't work. Outside of his circle of immediate fans, people don't like being talked down to - especially not by bots.
This is textbook Management by Logo. When you're out of ideas you change the name/logo and now suddenly you're dynamic forward-looking innovative etc.
Except not really. Management by Logo is like respraying a car engine because you don't know how to fix it. There's a fair-to-good chance you'll make things more broken rather than less.
Musk bought Twitter (RIP...) because he wanted to use it as a propaganda outlet for his own crazy Randian/Trumpish ideals. It was never meant to continue as a free and open discussion site for humans.
Musk appears to have plans to spray AI and other magic dead chickens all over everything to create a new automated kind of propaganda outlet.
I suspect that won't work. Outside of his circle of immediate fans, people don't like being talked down to - especially not by bots.
Classic Johnson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkELicRkq1I
> As for what he's doing, I think it's pretty transparent. He thinks Xs are really, really cool.
Long before X was the holding company he used to buy Twitter, which he is now trying to turn into a do everything (including finance) app, X(.com) was the online financt company Musk openly wanted to turn ibto a do everything app, and was dump as CEO from multiple times, the last time just before it was renamed after a product it had acquired with another company, and which (unlike the products Musk tried to launch internally) was its only meaningful success, PayPal.
> I have no idea why he didn't just buy Twitter, keep it strong, and then leverage it to push a do-everything app (that could be called X for all anyone cares).
Because he overburdened it with debt, meaning the turnaround has to be quick to work at all, and his do-everything plan is premised on a change in revenue model from traditional big ads to free/low-paying users to a more regular-user fee-for-service model.
Long before X was the holding company he used to buy Twitter, which he is now trying to turn into a do everything (including finance) app, X(.com) was the online financt company Musk openly wanted to turn ibto a do everything app, and was dump as CEO from multiple times, the last time just before it was renamed after a product it had acquired with another company, and which (unlike the products Musk tried to launch internally) was its only meaningful success, PayPal.
> I have no idea why he didn't just buy Twitter, keep it strong, and then leverage it to push a do-everything app (that could be called X for all anyone cares).
Because he overburdened it with debt, meaning the turnaround has to be quick to work at all, and his do-everything plan is premised on a change in revenue model from traditional big ads to free/low-paying users to a more regular-user fee-for-service model.
> I mean "Twitter Videos" are now "X Videos"
Which also happens to already be a porn site…
Which also happens to already be a porn site…
That's part of the joke. "The X Files" is also a thing. So is DirectX.
I wonder what the most successful joke rebranding in history has been up until now.
The conspiracy theorist in me wants to say that he is tanking Twitter to then get a payout from the Saudis.
You think he wasted his co-investors (including Saudis themselves) about $20 billion and took on a $13 billion dollar loan himself, and was forced to sell billions in Tesla stock, to get a "payout". Like how large a "payout" that has to be for any of this to make a lick of sense?
There's no payout. There's no conspiracy. Just a man and his arrogance and mental issues.
There's no payout. There's no conspiracy. Just a man and his arrogance and mental issues.
I agree with you, but fwiw, the conspiracy is that the Saudis want to avoid a repeat of the Arab Spring that was heavily fueled by Twitter, so in that sense, $20 bil would be the price tag to destroy Twitter, not an investment that needs to be recouped.
Surely they wouldn't pay $20 billion to a guy who purportedly is buying Twitter because he's a "free speech absolutist" and is "defending the future of democracy of the world".
Even if it's just PR (and it is just PR, evidently), it's an additional burden to have your PR and your actions be consistently at 180 degrees.
Also, $20 billion aren't the "price tag". That money didn't go to Elon. They went to Twitter's shareholders. Elon only ended up with losses and loans, so far, to the tune of another 20-30 billion at the very least.
So where's the "payout"? If you "hired" Elon to do this for you, as a Saudi, and you spend $20 billion as a co-investor, and need to cover Elon's $20-30 billion loss, "the price tag" is now up to $50 billion, but we're still only at break even in the short term, and only when we don't consider opportunity cost of Tesla stock dropping last year and future losses to Elon's company brands and so on, because he's coming off as a lunatic and wasting his time on Twitter, instead of being at Tesla and SpaceX.
So what's the price tag now? $80 billion? $100 billion? $150 billion?
Reminder, the entire Saudi family, all of them, together, have about $1.4 trillion, and that's not cash in the bank, but assets, oil, real estate, all of it.
Which means any such "price tag" would imply them giving up all their liquid assets and maybe liquidating more assets, in order to afford this "price tag" so quickly.
It's just nonsense.
Even if it's just PR (and it is just PR, evidently), it's an additional burden to have your PR and your actions be consistently at 180 degrees.
Also, $20 billion aren't the "price tag". That money didn't go to Elon. They went to Twitter's shareholders. Elon only ended up with losses and loans, so far, to the tune of another 20-30 billion at the very least.
So where's the "payout"? If you "hired" Elon to do this for you, as a Saudi, and you spend $20 billion as a co-investor, and need to cover Elon's $20-30 billion loss, "the price tag" is now up to $50 billion, but we're still only at break even in the short term, and only when we don't consider opportunity cost of Tesla stock dropping last year and future losses to Elon's company brands and so on, because he's coming off as a lunatic and wasting his time on Twitter, instead of being at Tesla and SpaceX.
So what's the price tag now? $80 billion? $100 billion? $150 billion?
Reminder, the entire Saudi family, all of them, together, have about $1.4 trillion, and that's not cash in the bank, but assets, oil, real estate, all of it.
Which means any such "price tag" would imply them giving up all their liquid assets and maybe liquidating more assets, in order to afford this "price tag" so quickly.
It's just nonsense.
Thanks for this delightful breakdown of how dumb this theory is.
By now I am very much aware that there are lots of people who believe conspiracy theories, yet I am still surprised when those people are from the tech scene. A developer who believes in the dumbest conspiracies is such an odd thing to me. It is so odd to me that someone who supposedly things about problems in a systematic way and has to break them down into their parts, can fall for something as dumb as the richest man in the world taking some sort of payoff to kill twitter.
I should know better by now, but it still takes me by surprise sometimes
By now I am very much aware that there are lots of people who believe conspiracy theories, yet I am still surprised when those people are from the tech scene. A developer who believes in the dumbest conspiracies is such an odd thing to me. It is so odd to me that someone who supposedly things about problems in a systematic way and has to break them down into their parts, can fall for something as dumb as the richest man in the world taking some sort of payoff to kill twitter.
I should know better by now, but it still takes me by surprise sometimes
I don't want to insult anyone, and I see your logic about systematic thought. But being a programmer doesn't mean you're good at it.
Shrug.
Shrug.
The conspiracy theory does not exist in a vacuum. People simply don’t want to admit to themselves that they were wrong for idolizing him, or they have a distaste for the kinds of people who attack him, so they choose to believe in the 5D chess game as a way of saving face or refusing to give ground.
Elon seems strangely desperate for money sometimes though. Despite his vast stock holdings, he feels compelled to play games with announcements that manipulate stock prices, and try pump-and-dump schemes on minor crypto.
Come on, conspiracy theories are fun. It's fun to engage in thought experiments about what could be going on behind the scenes and even more fun to throw them out there to see what other people think.
The original guy didn't even say he 100% believed it as fact. It's just a thought experiment
The original guy didn't even say he 100% believed it as fact. It's just a thought experiment
Your $50 billion math is obviously wrong. You try to add up all the pieces and total $50 billion. But we know the total - $44 billion. Of which we know $12.5 billion came from the banks (secured only by Twitter itself). So for the Saudis to repay him (and his investors) would cost $31.5 billion.
Meanwhile, you've offered Elon the opportunity to justify liquidating billions of TSLA stock at its height without triggering a massive crash right before the entire market sank. And his reputation outside running a social network doesn't seem to have suffered much at all. Do you need to offer him a premium or does he offer one to you?
(And on financing, the Saudis' credit is fine)
Now, it's nonsense because controlling Twitter and using it to silent dissent algorithmically is better than blowing it up. But the math could easily work.
Meanwhile, you've offered Elon the opportunity to justify liquidating billions of TSLA stock at its height without triggering a massive crash right before the entire market sank. And his reputation outside running a social network doesn't seem to have suffered much at all. Do you need to offer him a premium or does he offer one to you?
(And on financing, the Saudis' credit is fine)
Now, it's nonsense because controlling Twitter and using it to silent dissent algorithmically is better than blowing it up. But the math could easily work.
It's nonsense but your first two sentences are nonsense. Elon Musk never demonstrated any genuine interest in "free speech". There never was any reason to believe this is an ideological core value to him. He always clearly just wanted crowds to cheer for him.
It's also not at all a burden for your PR to be diametrically opposed to your actions, especially if your actions are seen as bad. Absolutist regimes love portraying themselves as the victims because it gives them a moral justification (no matter how flimsy). And "free speech absolutists" are a great example given how many people publicly adopt that stance but then use it to justify shutting down their opposition for being "against free speech".
The reason people are creating nonsensical conspiracy theories about the Twitter buyout is that they want to believe there's a rhyme and reason to the madness, the same way they created nonsensical conspiracy theories following 9/11 because it meant that the US was in control after all and not actually (figuratively) brought to its knees by a handful of foreigners with box cutters.
The truth is that Elon Musk shitposted his way into being forced to follow through on an acquisition he never really wanted, used his business connections to coordinate a hamfisted leveraged buyout and got too high on his own supply after being the dog that caught the car. Now he's stuck in a midlife crisis trying to relive the failure that was his involvement in X.com but without Peter Thiel being able to stop him.
It's also not at all a burden for your PR to be diametrically opposed to your actions, especially if your actions are seen as bad. Absolutist regimes love portraying themselves as the victims because it gives them a moral justification (no matter how flimsy). And "free speech absolutists" are a great example given how many people publicly adopt that stance but then use it to justify shutting down their opposition for being "against free speech".
The reason people are creating nonsensical conspiracy theories about the Twitter buyout is that they want to believe there's a rhyme and reason to the madness, the same way they created nonsensical conspiracy theories following 9/11 because it meant that the US was in control after all and not actually (figuratively) brought to its knees by a handful of foreigners with box cutters.
The truth is that Elon Musk shitposted his way into being forced to follow through on an acquisition he never really wanted, used his business connections to coordinate a hamfisted leveraged buyout and got too high on his own supply after being the dog that caught the car. Now he's stuck in a midlife crisis trying to relive the failure that was his involvement in X.com but without Peter Thiel being able to stop him.
> The reason people are creating nonsensical conspiracy theories about the Twitter buyout is that they want to believe there's a rhyme and reason to the madness, the same way they created nonsensical conspiracy theories following 9/11 because it meant that the US was in control after all and not actually (figuratively) brought to its knees by a handful of foreigners with box cutters.
Exactly. People want to believe that the richest man in the world somehow deserves to be so, mainly through their effort. They want to think "if only I put a bit more work in, I could have it all!" The thought of somebody becoming the world's richest man AND being as unstable and erratic as Musk appears to be is disconcerting for those who want to live in a world with some kind of order in it.
Exactly. People want to believe that the richest man in the world somehow deserves to be so, mainly through their effort. They want to think "if only I put a bit more work in, I could have it all!" The thought of somebody becoming the world's richest man AND being as unstable and erratic as Musk appears to be is disconcerting for those who want to live in a world with some kind of order in it.
Musk never had any genuine interest in "free speech", as opposed to playing to the gallery of his fanbase, but from the POV of the Saudi conspiracy a Twitter takeover by an utterly boring conglomerate who quietly made it as compliant as possible with local laws (including Saudi ones) and tweaked the algorithms to make political stories less likely to surface would have been much more helpful than one by a fame-magnet pandering to a fanbase which loves populist politics and has no love whatsoever for the House of Saud. If you're working for the Saudis and playing 5D chess rather than 2D tech investing, that insincere posture isn't much use because he and his acolytes aren't holding that posture for you.
> The truth is that Elon Musk shitposted his way into being forced to follow through on an acquisition he never really wanted
Yup. The real reason behind all of this is not the market or the Saudis nor anything else. It’s because Musk wanted to be on the board, and he was rejected. He suffered a huge narcissistic injury, and then said “Fine, if I can’t be on the board, I’ll be the board and just buy the whole thing outright”
That’s why he waived due diligence and offered so much money. He was high off his narcissistic rage and flexing. He was on the warpath and forcing a hostile takeover. But then he cooled down, of course, and realized what he did was a fucking mess for himself. So he threw a tantrum in court.
This is all explained very easily by his personality disorder.
Yup. The real reason behind all of this is not the market or the Saudis nor anything else. It’s because Musk wanted to be on the board, and he was rejected. He suffered a huge narcissistic injury, and then said “Fine, if I can’t be on the board, I’ll be the board and just buy the whole thing outright”
That’s why he waived due diligence and offered so much money. He was high off his narcissistic rage and flexing. He was on the warpath and forcing a hostile takeover. But then he cooled down, of course, and realized what he did was a fucking mess for himself. So he threw a tantrum in court.
This is all explained very easily by his personality disorder.
But he turned down the board seat: https://twitter.com/paraga/status/1513354622466867201
Because it came with a "don't shit-talk the company in public" requirement, yes.
> he's a "free speech absolutist" and is "defending the future of democracy of the world".
There's no way this is true but this is going to live on forever in my headcanon. I fucking love it when /pol/ gets this creative.
I don’t think they intend to destroy Twitter, but rather influence content and moderation policies towards more favourable outcome.
Twitter is extremely popular in Saudi, more so than the US/Europe, so some level of influence is extremely valuable.
Twitter is extremely popular in Saudi, more so than the US/Europe, so some level of influence is extremely valuable.
The equivalent of sportswashing.
>would be the price tag to destroy Twitter,
How would destroying it prevent that again, people would just go elsewhere. You’d prevent it by Twitter thriving then clever use of algorithm suppression and shadow bans.
Conspiracy doesn’t add up.
How would destroying it prevent that again, people would just go elsewhere. You’d prevent it by Twitter thriving then clever use of algorithm suppression and shadow bans.
Conspiracy doesn’t add up.
I don’t ascribe to the theory, it was in jest. However, he’s just so unfathomably bad at managing Twitter that I almost can’t imagine any other reason.
I don't buy this theory — Elon holds the X branding dearly to an absurd degree and wouldn't burn it as an exit plan — but the question that I have is: how is Elon going to transfer x.com to X Corp? He reportedly owns it personally after buying it back from PayPal, so is he going to donate the domain to the newly-formed company or is he going to sell it to X Corp for a fee?
It would be far better for the Saudis to use Twitter to shadowban dissent and astroturf support than just shutting it down.
He just did autocrats a huge solid.
Less of a solid than he was already doing by turning it into a haven for extremist right-wingers.
As it was a haven for extremist left-wingers, perhaps now it's balanced out.
As an “extremist left winger” I can tell you that this is false. We got banned all the time for talking trash to nazis and proud boys (many of whom are now in prison for trying to overthrow the country).
I keep hearing people say this, but I'm just not seeing it. Who are these extremist right-wingers that are now on Twitter? I don't know of anyone to the right of Tucker Carlson, and he's a bog standard center-right civic nationalist.
As far as I can tell the actual extremist right-wingers are on Gab rather than Twitter.
As far as I can tell the actual extremist right-wingers are on Gab rather than Twitter.
Perhaps you don't see the extreme right on Twitter because you think Tucker Carlson is center-right. He is about as right-wing you can get without actively doing the Hitler salute. The fact that he has a slight populist, anti-corporate bent doesn't affect that significantly.
And I'm speaking from a US politics perspective, where Hillary Clinton is considered center-left. If we were to take a more international view, then Joe Biden is somewhere on the center-right, and Trump and Tucker are so far on the right that you can barely see the spaces between them and the nazis. For context, far-right Marine Le Pen of France is to the left of Tucker on most issues, except that she's a bit more openly racist.
And I'm speaking from a US politics perspective, where Hillary Clinton is considered center-left. If we were to take a more international view, then Joe Biden is somewhere on the center-right, and Trump and Tucker are so far on the right that you can barely see the spaces between them and the nazis. For context, far-right Marine Le Pen of France is to the left of Tucker on most issues, except that she's a bit more openly racist.
As unpleasant as these right-wing figures are, do you really think that any of them are truly genocidal or likely to engage in military conquest? (and therefore genuinely worthy of comparison with the Nazis)
At first the NASDAP tried segregation, then deportation, then imprisonment, and then finally extermination of the Jews and Roma. This is how fascists operate. It’s a slow burn, a slow boiling of the frog so it does not leap from the pot and protest it’s ultimate fate.
The Nazis weren't genocidal until well after they held absolute power. I suspect the same will be true of a lot of these ultra-right-wing figures if they ever get into power. To be clear, I'm talking more of the Richard Spencers of the world, not so much the Tucker Carlsons. But I'm sure Tucker would very much rather see an actual nazi in power than a Bernie Sanders.
Regarding their views of minorities, muslims, women and jews, well, let's say they arw frightingly close. For now, they also seem to be rather non-interventionlist, so now outright conquest. But then, people forget that the first country the Nazis conquered was Germany.
Not saying all right winger are Nazis, but the "jews will not replace us" crowd definitely is. And the rest is at least authoritarian bordering facist. Same goes for some European parties: the AfD in Germamy, whateber LePen calls her outfit now in France, the current government party in Italy, the current politics of Nethanyahu (arguably not a Nazinof course, but a straight up authoritarian with religious tendencies and disdain for democratic seperation of powers), Hungary, the FPÖ in Austria... The list way too long.
Not saying all right winger are Nazis, but the "jews will not replace us" crowd definitely is. And the rest is at least authoritarian bordering facist. Same goes for some European parties: the AfD in Germamy, whateber LePen calls her outfit now in France, the current government party in Italy, the current politics of Nethanyahu (arguably not a Nazinof course, but a straight up authoritarian with religious tendencies and disdain for democratic seperation of powers), Hungary, the FPÖ in Austria... The list way too long.
That’s exactly what people said about Vladimir Putin 15-20 years ago. “Sure, he has an unpleasant authoritarian stripe, but surely he wouldn’t actually engage in military conquest and genocide.” And here we are.
Don’t underestimate the nationalist bloodlust.
Don’t underestimate the nationalist bloodlust.
>As unpleasant as these right-wing figures are, do you really think that any of them are truly genocidal or likely to engage in military conquest? (and therefore genuinely worthy of comparison with the Nazis)
Haven't some of them been clamouring for an attack on Mexico recently?
Anyway, there are worse figures than Tucker Carlson on Twitter. Some are outright nazis. Others can name them if they wish, but I won't amplify them here.
Haven't some of them been clamouring for an attack on Mexico recently?
Anyway, there are worse figures than Tucker Carlson on Twitter. Some are outright nazis. Others can name them if they wish, but I won't amplify them here.
You and me both!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36558581
At this point, this seems intentional on his part.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36558581
At this point, this seems intentional on his part.
This is hilarious, it assumes Saudi investors would value silencing dissenters at $44BN.
It also requires believing that these machiavellian Saudi investors are so dumb they can't tell how much power they would have by keeping Twitter growing so they can more effectively silence dissenters before it becomes news.
It also requires believing that these machiavellian Saudi investors are so dumb they can't tell how much power they would have by keeping Twitter growing so they can more effectively silence dissenters before it becomes news.
People can't accept that Elon could do something this stupid, so they assert that he has to be playing some kind of 4D chess.
Just an hour ago on some news show from a US TV channel, NBC or Fox or what was it, the host said (about the X rebrand) "it doesn't make sense, so there should be a bigger plan here".
And that indeed sums up so much of the mentality of Elon's supporters. The more stupid things it does, the grander the delusion becomes.
And that indeed sums up so much of the mentality of Elon's supporters. The more stupid things it does, the grander the delusion becomes.
Common falsehood that people believe is that smart people simply can't do stupid shit.
Common falsehood that people believe is that rich people are smart.
The biggest early factor to Elon Musk's wealth was lucking into Peter Thiel merging X.com into Confinity/PayPal. Thiel likely anticipated that Musk would have tanked X.com eventually but it would have been much worse for Confinity if it had done so given its market share and the rippling affect that could have caused in the market and user trust. X.com largely operated on hot air, riding the Dot Com bubble. The massive jumps after that directly stem from his Tesla shares, which are massively overvalued.
Basically he bought an EV company right when greenwashing and solar/electric was the new hotness and founded SpaceX mid-way to the tail end of a space optimism/tourism and "nerd-cool" (i.e. rise of super hero movies in mainstream media, widespread enthusiasm for "tech gadgets", etc) trend. He used SpaceX to make grandiose claims about technological developments which in turn fed into a hype cycle of vaporware projects like the Hyperloop, eventually allowing him to position himself as "real-life Tony Stark" further boosting his credibility with no actual qualifications.
I'm not saying his success isn't real, but his success doesn't come down to him being a clever business person but more to being a meme. He turned himself into a brand and that brand carried Tesla stock to absurd heights but with Twitter's failure that brand is becoming increasingly toxic and he's stuck turning dials and checking if people are still cheering while also trying to relive his young adulthood high of X.com, except we're no longer in the Dot-Com bubble and he doesn't understand PayPal did him a favor by kicking him out.
The biggest early factor to Elon Musk's wealth was lucking into Peter Thiel merging X.com into Confinity/PayPal. Thiel likely anticipated that Musk would have tanked X.com eventually but it would have been much worse for Confinity if it had done so given its market share and the rippling affect that could have caused in the market and user trust. X.com largely operated on hot air, riding the Dot Com bubble. The massive jumps after that directly stem from his Tesla shares, which are massively overvalued.
Basically he bought an EV company right when greenwashing and solar/electric was the new hotness and founded SpaceX mid-way to the tail end of a space optimism/tourism and "nerd-cool" (i.e. rise of super hero movies in mainstream media, widespread enthusiasm for "tech gadgets", etc) trend. He used SpaceX to make grandiose claims about technological developments which in turn fed into a hype cycle of vaporware projects like the Hyperloop, eventually allowing him to position himself as "real-life Tony Stark" further boosting his credibility with no actual qualifications.
I'm not saying his success isn't real, but his success doesn't come down to him being a clever business person but more to being a meme. He turned himself into a brand and that brand carried Tesla stock to absurd heights but with Twitter's failure that brand is becoming increasingly toxic and he's stuck turning dials and checking if people are still cheering while also trying to relive his young adulthood high of X.com, except we're no longer in the Dot-Com bubble and he doesn't understand PayPal did him a favor by kicking him out.
> Common falsehood that people believe is that rich people are smart.
I agree with all the rest of your points, but I think the problem with this is that Elon really is smart. It is just that you can see that he was mostly a really good salesperson of his personal brand. He also had his finger on the pulse of what was "cool" (internet, space, electric cars) for awhile (a lot of that is probably luck, but there has to be a certain amount of talent there I think--but that talent for fashion always wears off).
He's also smart enough to be able to regurgitate what SpaceX engineers tell him and to manage to sound like he's got a PhD. He must actually study that pretty well and be at least decent enough at physics/engineering that he's clearly above-average intelligent. But it is other people making the breakthroughs in the mathematics of how to hoverslam rockets, he's a bit more like a CEO version of a science communicator.
The thing is that people are largely just ignorant about where all the technology comes from (Lars Blackmore worked at NASA JPL when he published the first articles on successive convexification of the landing problem -- so the US Government really invented hoverslamming rockets), and they are horrible at judging what kind of intelligence a public personality actually has. They also think that smart people are smart at literally everything.
And as much as I hate to admit it, Donald Trump was also smart, but his talents are almost purely sociopathic. And one of those talents is being able to actually lean-in to a shitstorm of stupid that he creates around him, and make his sycophants write it all off as 4D chess. That is actually a talent. A genuinely stupid person wouldn't be able to pull that off.
I agree with all the rest of your points, but I think the problem with this is that Elon really is smart. It is just that you can see that he was mostly a really good salesperson of his personal brand. He also had his finger on the pulse of what was "cool" (internet, space, electric cars) for awhile (a lot of that is probably luck, but there has to be a certain amount of talent there I think--but that talent for fashion always wears off).
He's also smart enough to be able to regurgitate what SpaceX engineers tell him and to manage to sound like he's got a PhD. He must actually study that pretty well and be at least decent enough at physics/engineering that he's clearly above-average intelligent. But it is other people making the breakthroughs in the mathematics of how to hoverslam rockets, he's a bit more like a CEO version of a science communicator.
The thing is that people are largely just ignorant about where all the technology comes from (Lars Blackmore worked at NASA JPL when he published the first articles on successive convexification of the landing problem -- so the US Government really invented hoverslamming rockets), and they are horrible at judging what kind of intelligence a public personality actually has. They also think that smart people are smart at literally everything.
And as much as I hate to admit it, Donald Trump was also smart, but his talents are almost purely sociopathic. And one of those talents is being able to actually lean-in to a shitstorm of stupid that he creates around him, and make his sycophants write it all off as 4D chess. That is actually a talent. A genuinely stupid person wouldn't be able to pull that off.
And now all he has is the best space company and the best car company, poor bastard.
It was so easy everyone else also did it
It was so easy everyone else also did it
By what measure is Tesla "the best car company"? According to every metric I could find the company is clearly overvalued and stock price is the only measure it seems to truly excel in.
Elon Musk is listed as the CEO of Neuralink, SpaceX and Tesla. Do you genuinely think Elon Musk is so good at being a CEO that he can run three vastly different companies (4 including X Corp which he formally ceded his position as CEO) at the same time? Or do you think that his primary function was founding/buying the companies? Most of his interference in his companies (especially Tesla) seems to have been detrimental: from an atrocious workplace accident rate in Tesla factories because he "doesn't like yellow" to laying off most of Twitter before establishing any persistence/transfer of knowledge.
If you listen to him talk about any subject you're professionally familiar with, it's evident he knows how to mix in buzzwords but doesn't understand the underlying technology or how any of it actually works. His Twitter Spaces interview was a perfect example for software developers, his recent interview about Twitter/X as an "everything app" was an example for anyone working in (or remotely informed about) fintech.
His wealth is almost entirely tied to Tesla's share price and Tesla's share price is tied to his public perception as "real-life Tony Stark". SpaceX mostly runs on government contracts - incidentally most of Tesla's actual revenue also stems from public funds in the form of emissions trading.
Elon Musk is listed as the CEO of Neuralink, SpaceX and Tesla. Do you genuinely think Elon Musk is so good at being a CEO that he can run three vastly different companies (4 including X Corp which he formally ceded his position as CEO) at the same time? Or do you think that his primary function was founding/buying the companies? Most of his interference in his companies (especially Tesla) seems to have been detrimental: from an atrocious workplace accident rate in Tesla factories because he "doesn't like yellow" to laying off most of Twitter before establishing any persistence/transfer of knowledge.
If you listen to him talk about any subject you're professionally familiar with, it's evident he knows how to mix in buzzwords but doesn't understand the underlying technology or how any of it actually works. His Twitter Spaces interview was a perfect example for software developers, his recent interview about Twitter/X as an "everything app" was an example for anyone working in (or remotely informed about) fintech.
His wealth is almost entirely tied to Tesla's share price and Tesla's share price is tied to his public perception as "real-life Tony Stark". SpaceX mostly runs on government contracts - incidentally most of Tesla's actual revenue also stems from public funds in the form of emissions trading.
Makes the most EVs, makes the most profit per EV, has the best charging, self driving, efficiency, software.
But if it's so easy, why hasn't anyone else bothered?
All space programs run on government contracts, what's new? He's providing the only reusable rocket, and 10 years later no one else has done that, why?
But if it's so easy, why hasn't anyone else bothered?
All space programs run on government contracts, what's new? He's providing the only reusable rocket, and 10 years later no one else has done that, why?
I imagine it's like turning to religion to make the universe feel less chaotic and random, but the reality is that most people are repeatedly playing the bongcloud opening and simply getting lucky.
That doesn't feel quite as fair as having earned success, so 4D chess it is.
That doesn't feel quite as fair as having earned success, so 4D chess it is.
That's a good point. Chopping them into little pieces is bound to be a lot cheaper.
Yesterday they valued a football player playing 34 games for them at 1 billion.
> it assumes Saudi investors would value silencing dissenters at $44BN.
Why not? For the Saudis it's pocket money.
> It also requires believing that these machiavellian Saudi investors are so dumb they can't tell how much power they would have by keeping Twitter growing so they can more effectively silence dissenters before it becomes news.
The thing is, reach-wise there is no replacement for Twitter:
- Meta's platforms forbid sharing of non family friendly content and enforce that ban through rigorous moderation, which means reports from violent protests have a very hard time there; on top of that the user base of Facebook has declined to mostly Boomers and people using it for the messenger only.
- Telegram has no problem with violence or unrest, see the coverage of the Russian invasion, but people need to already be in the groups that share such information - it's a good tool for organizing protests, but less so for spreading the word to the general public.
- Reddit has a similar problem, unless you make the post rise in one of the default subs, no one will care, and Reddit's format doesn't lend itself to real-time updates.
- Mastodon and the rest of the Fediverse suffer from a lack of cross-instance content discoverability. The "trends" on most of the Mastodon servers are completely broken, disabled or useless and the platform doesn't have a concept of geotagging to make it easier to discover regional content - the best it can do is language, but Arabic or English is spoken worldwide. And search isn't fediverse-wide, just the toots that the server the user is active on has gotten into their global feed view.
The USP of Twitter was that everyone could connect with everyone, worldwide, and get their issue trending in a matter of minutes if need be.
Why not? For the Saudis it's pocket money.
> It also requires believing that these machiavellian Saudi investors are so dumb they can't tell how much power they would have by keeping Twitter growing so they can more effectively silence dissenters before it becomes news.
The thing is, reach-wise there is no replacement for Twitter:
- Meta's platforms forbid sharing of non family friendly content and enforce that ban through rigorous moderation, which means reports from violent protests have a very hard time there; on top of that the user base of Facebook has declined to mostly Boomers and people using it for the messenger only.
- Telegram has no problem with violence or unrest, see the coverage of the Russian invasion, but people need to already be in the groups that share such information - it's a good tool for organizing protests, but less so for spreading the word to the general public.
- Reddit has a similar problem, unless you make the post rise in one of the default subs, no one will care, and Reddit's format doesn't lend itself to real-time updates.
- Mastodon and the rest of the Fediverse suffer from a lack of cross-instance content discoverability. The "trends" on most of the Mastodon servers are completely broken, disabled or useless and the platform doesn't have a concept of geotagging to make it easier to discover regional content - the best it can do is language, but Arabic or English is spoken worldwide. And search isn't fediverse-wide, just the toots that the server the user is active on has gotten into their global feed view.
The USP of Twitter was that everyone could connect with everyone, worldwide, and get their issue trending in a matter of minutes if need be.
> it's pocket money
It’s not.
It’s not.
The Saudis are making a billion dollars a day from oil [1], the personal wealth of the dictator clan is estimated at 1.4 trillion dollars [2] and the real value is likely significantly higher than that, especially if you include assets owned nominally by the government or national companies, but factually under clan control.
So yes, this is absolutely pocket money, particularly if it makes sure that they can't be toppled from the money spigot or that their neighborhood gets destabilized in a second Arabian Spring again. Smaller Qatar spent four times than that on the World Cup infrastructure that was nothing more than a couple weeks worth of sports whitewashing.
We can't apply Western values of "worth it" to people who can sink billions of dollars on a whim in European soccer clubs just because they can.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-26/saudi-ara...
[2] https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/saudi-royal-familys-dol...
[3] https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/10/influence-game-...
So yes, this is absolutely pocket money, particularly if it makes sure that they can't be toppled from the money spigot or that their neighborhood gets destabilized in a second Arabian Spring again. Smaller Qatar spent four times than that on the World Cup infrastructure that was nothing more than a couple weeks worth of sports whitewashing.
We can't apply Western values of "worth it" to people who can sink billions of dollars on a whim in European soccer clubs just because they can.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-26/saudi-ara...
[2] https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/saudi-royal-familys-dol...
[3] https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/10/influence-game-...
> The Saudis are making a billion dollars a day from oil [1]
That was revenue (?) when oil prices were much higher.
> particularly if it makes sure that they can't be toppled from the
But yeah, I guess arguing about monetary amounts is a but pointless since I think the whole premise is just absurd..
Organizing the WC or buying European fotball clubs is a much better investment (if there only reason they invested in Twitter is what you’re suggesting, which of course makes no sense).
That was revenue (?) when oil prices were much higher.
> particularly if it makes sure that they can't be toppled from the
But yeah, I guess arguing about monetary amounts is a but pointless since I think the whole premise is just absurd..
Organizing the WC or buying European fotball clubs is a much better investment (if there only reason they invested in Twitter is what you’re suggesting, which of course makes no sense).
The cost would be much more than $44B, but even if it wasn't 3% of total house assets is certainly not pocket money.
This commenter's analysis seems more credible to me https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36858613
This commenter's analysis seems more credible to me https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36858613
Raises some good points indeed, however it assumes that the Saudis ordered Musk to buy and crash Twitter directly, and it assumes that the Tesla shares he used as collateral would go to zero.
It's also possible that they got approached by Musk and saw a good timing to exploit a rich Western idiot to further their interests. I mean, Musk being deranged enough to call a rescue diver a pedo, smoking weed in Joe Rogan's podcast or give names to his children that are completely bonkers even for celebrities?
The signs that he's not completely well mentally were there for years. Loaning him 20 billion or whatever dollars was an extremely high risk move alone for that factor, so either the Saudis have gone off the rails as well or they see some hidden aspect that makes the deal worth their while even if the risk event materializes.
It's also possible that they got approached by Musk and saw a good timing to exploit a rich Western idiot to further their interests. I mean, Musk being deranged enough to call a rescue diver a pedo, smoking weed in Joe Rogan's podcast or give names to his children that are completely bonkers even for celebrities?
The signs that he's not completely well mentally were there for years. Loaning him 20 billion or whatever dollars was an extremely high risk move alone for that factor, so either the Saudis have gone off the rails as well or they see some hidden aspect that makes the deal worth their while even if the risk event materializes.
Musk has been obsessed with this domain he owns for decades now. PayPal started as x.com, he's reliving his glory days.
x.com was a seperate company which merged with Paypal
https://web.archive.org/web/20000619201415/http://www.x.com/...
https://web.archive.org/web/20000619201415/http://www.x.com/...
And indeed if you open https://x.com you now get sent to Twitter
Seems that he wanted to put the domain to use
Seems that he wanted to put the domain to use
I would wonder how much did Twitter - the company - pay the owner of X.com (Musk) for permission to use the name?
> this domain he owns for decades now
Musk did not own x.com between 2001 and 2017.
Musk did not own x.com between 2001 and 2017.
> It's full of X brands. "Thanks to Microsoft" is kinda arbitrary of the article.
Quite. It's pretty big corp 101 to sort this shit out as a rebrand.
Quite. It's pretty big corp 101 to sort this shit out as a rebrand.
>What is he doing? We can ask but I doubt he knows himself.
Muxk likex X and xe doexn't gixe a fux.
But seriously, Musk likes X. When you have the kind of Fuck You Money(tm) that he does, you don't need a reason to like something or use something you like.
Muxk likex X and xe doexn't gixe a fux.
But seriously, Musk likes X. When you have the kind of Fuck You Money(tm) that he does, you don't need a reason to like something or use something you like.
There’s also “Brand X”, which is always worse than whatever is being advertised.
He is implementing security through obscurity.
X also stands for ex-, as in, something which belongs to the past.
Getting press and attention, as seen here, for better or worse.
I head they named entire operating system after the letter X
One interesting aspect is that trademarks have to be in use in order to be defended.
If Musk’s X moves away from the name “Twitter” and the bird logo as completely as they seem likely to, those will become essentially undefended trademarks that someone else could start using.
Want to found Twitter all over again?
There are ways (legal tricks) to rebrand while defending the old brand. But these require detailed legal advice, disciplined ops, and a will to do so. I’d say that it looks like Musk is lacking all three of those at X right now.
If Musk’s X moves away from the name “Twitter” and the bird logo as completely as they seem likely to, those will become essentially undefended trademarks that someone else could start using.
Want to found Twitter all over again?
There are ways (legal tricks) to rebrand while defending the old brand. But these require detailed legal advice, disciplined ops, and a will to do so. I’d say that it looks like Musk is lacking all three of those at X right now.
it's really not as hard as you think it is. Companies are not limited to owning just one product with one branding. If removing a product from the shelves was all it took for others to be allowed to immediately steal all the branding you had on it, the tech world would be a lot more chaotic.
If not using it is a big deal (it's not, but let's assume it is), it doesn't require "detailed legal advice, disciplined ops" to put add logo on a webpage.
If not using it is a big deal (it's not, but let's assume it is), it doesn't require "detailed legal advice, disciplined ops" to put add logo on a webpage.
> it doesn't require "detailed legal advice, disciplined ops" to put add logo on a webpage.
It actually does, because the use has to satisfy the specific terms of the trademark, which might not be accomplished by just a logo on a random web page. And it has to stay there even in the face of internal pressure to “turn the page” on the old brand, or the general drift of focus/priorities over time.
This is one those things that is simple in concept, but can be deeply complicated by internal factors. I’ve got years of experience doing this.
Trademarks are like a ratchet; if you let them slip too far, it can be extremely difficult to turn them back. And things tend to slip if left unattended.
Edit to add: note that I also said “a will to do so.” It’s not even clear whether Musk will want to defend the Twitter trademark. Certainly doesn’t look like it so far.
It actually does, because the use has to satisfy the specific terms of the trademark, which might not be accomplished by just a logo on a random web page. And it has to stay there even in the face of internal pressure to “turn the page” on the old brand, or the general drift of focus/priorities over time.
This is one those things that is simple in concept, but can be deeply complicated by internal factors. I’ve got years of experience doing this.
Trademarks are like a ratchet; if you let them slip too far, it can be extremely difficult to turn them back. And things tend to slip if left unattended.
Edit to add: note that I also said “a will to do so.” It’s not even clear whether Musk will want to defend the Twitter trademark. Certainly doesn’t look like it so far.
This reminds me of Twix, which every few years or so brings out a "special" Raiders edition to defend the old brand.
Perhaps Musk will do something similar. He's definitely not going to give up Twitter, and even if he does, he'll keep the domain.
Perhaps Musk will do something similar. He's definitely not going to give up Twitter, and even if he does, he'll keep the domain.
And it's not just a trademark matter. I haven't looked in detail at how the Twitter acquisition was structured, but somewhere there's a spreadsheet with the words "goodwill" and next to those words there's a huge number reflecting what Musk overpaid for Twitter.
To simply stop using the Twitter brand, logo, and verb-ology would be a huge slap to that number, not that it really means anything financially.
See: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/goodwill.asp
To simply stop using the Twitter brand, logo, and verb-ology would be a huge slap to that number, not that it really means anything financially.
See: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/goodwill.asp
There are already reports that some investors have marked down their Twitter stakes by 2/3 or more.
> he'll keep the domain
Unless the company forgets to renew the domain because everyone who would be responsible for that has quite or been fired. Not that I think this is at all likely, but God would it be hilarious.
Unless the company forgets to renew the domain because everyone who would be responsible for that has quite or been fired. Not that I think this is at all likely, but God would it be hilarious.
Musk's explanation:
"Twitter was acquired by X Corp both to ensure freedom of speech and as an accelerant for X, the everything app. This is not simply a company renaming itself, but doing the same thing.
The Twitter name made sense when it was just 140 character messages going back and forth – like birds tweeting – but now you can post almost anything, including several hours of video.
In the months to come, we will add comprehensive communications and the ability to conduct your entire financial world. The Twitter name does not make sense in that context, so we must bid adieu to the bird."
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1683656350046232578
"Twitter was acquired by X Corp both to ensure freedom of speech and as an accelerant for X, the everything app. This is not simply a company renaming itself, but doing the same thing.
The Twitter name made sense when it was just 140 character messages going back and forth – like birds tweeting – but now you can post almost anything, including several hours of video.
In the months to come, we will add comprehensive communications and the ability to conduct your entire financial world. The Twitter name does not make sense in that context, so we must bid adieu to the bird."
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1683656350046232578
Yeah, we understand the new thing he wants to build. We just think it was stupid to start by spending $44 billion on a globally recognized product, IP, and customer base and then throwing them all in the toilet.
He didn’t spend $44B on a globally recognized product, IP, and customer base. He spent $44B on his ego.
He paid for the users and their network effect.
Not really, if you want your new platform to instantly become one of the most used websites in the world. Why should he care about twitter's brand name?
I don’t think this process is instant. I also don’t think there’s almost any adoption to the new feature associated with X. I for one don’t even know how to access these presumed hour long videos, much less watch them. Similarly, I almost never click the “read more” in longer posts on my feed because it takes me out of my feed.
If that's all he wanted, it would have been way cheaper to buy Yahoo a few years ago when it sold for $5B.
Twitter is already as irrelevant as MySpace or usenet to anyone under 30. It is a dead brand walking. Renaming makes total sense.
Then why buy Twitter for $44B to show the world how bad of a business leader you are or how bad you are at leading or inspiring a tech team?
Why not just use that $44B to build X.com from scratch?
Who will trust Elon to build a reliable platform, i.e. use X.com for their finances or any other crucial services X is planning to offer.
He thinks you can run this platform with a skeleton crew. I wouldn't trust that platform at all.
Why not just use that $44B to build X.com from scratch?
Who will trust Elon to build a reliable platform, i.e. use X.com for their finances or any other crucial services X is planning to offer.
He thinks you can run this platform with a skeleton crew. I wouldn't trust that platform at all.
If it’s so irrelevant, why did he buy it for $44 billion?
Why didn’t he take $44 billion and do a startup instead?
Why didn’t he take $44 billion and do a startup instead?
He was forced to buy it due to its own inflated ego and stupidity. He tried everything he could to exit the agreement, but failed and had to buy the company at an inflated price.
> If it’s so irrelevant, why did he buy it for $44 billion?
He mistaked his like of Twitter for everyones likes of Twitter, and he has no impulse control leading him to sign an iron clad contract.
He mistaked his like of Twitter for everyones likes of Twitter, and he has no impulse control leading him to sign an iron clad contract.
>If it’s so irrelevant, why did he buy it for $44 billion?
Stupid is as stupid does
Stupid is as stupid does
Who cares if 'Twitter' doesn't make sense for things over 140 char.
They didn't re-brand 'Coke' when they took out the 'Cocaine'.
It takes a lot of effort to have a global brand. They already have it in 'Twitter'. X is not unique enough to ever stand out.
This is such a bad decision, it is just frosting for all the people sitting back eating popcorn watching this dumpster fire.
They didn't re-brand 'Coke' when they took out the 'Cocaine'.
It takes a lot of effort to have a global brand. They already have it in 'Twitter'. X is not unique enough to ever stand out.
This is such a bad decision, it is just frosting for all the people sitting back eating popcorn watching this dumpster fire.
Just to be that guy… Coca-cola didn’t get its name from cocaine, but the coca leaves from which cocaine is extracted. Coca-cola still contains some amount of “decocainized” coca leaves. And the continued presence in the syrup formula is likely due to the name/brand.
From: https://www.eater.com/23620802/cocaine-in-coca-cola-coke-rec...
> it’s more likely that it “continues to be used merely to enable the Company to retain the word ‘Coca’ in the name
What does this have to do with the made up name of a short message of 140 characters? Nothing. It’s not like sending a video or 141 character messages are auto associated with the term “X”.
But in the Coca-Cola case, the words in the brand do have meaning.
From: https://www.eater.com/23620802/cocaine-in-coca-cola-coke-rec...
> it’s more likely that it “continues to be used merely to enable the Company to retain the word ‘Coca’ in the name
What does this have to do with the made up name of a short message of 140 characters? Nothing. It’s not like sending a video or 141 character messages are auto associated with the term “X”.
But in the Coca-Cola case, the words in the brand do have meaning.
By the way Coca-Cola still uses coca leafs in the production, although perhaps it's so dilluted there are no traces left in the final product.
There is a single company that is authorized to import coca leafs to US. They create a cocaine free extract which they sell to Coca-Cola as an ingredient for their syrup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Company#Coca_extraction
There is a single company that is authorized to import coca leafs to US. They create a cocaine free extract which they sell to Coca-Cola as an ingredient for their syrup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Company#Coca_extraction
Clearly you do not remember "New Coke" where they did in fact attempt to rebrand from Coca-Cola the actual brand to "Coke" in addition to the formula change.
The brand kinda succeeded, as everyone calls is Coke, even though ti is actually Coca-Cola Classic and Coke is dead because the Coke formula was terrible tasting
The brand kinda succeeded, as everyone calls is Coke, even though ti is actually Coca-Cola Classic and Coke is dead because the Coke formula was terrible tasting
"Coke" was a popular synonym for "Coca-Cola" long before the brand formally adopted it. They introduced "Diet Coke" three years before "New Coke" came along. Similarly, terms like "retweet" came from users. Most companies would kill to own brands that have this level of cultural salience and brand engagement, and wouldn't throw that value away.
New Coke wasn't terrible tasting, most people liked and sometimes preferred the drink, but they didn't like the change.
In fact, New Coke is based on the Diet Coke recipe, the latter is still a success to this day. The sugar-free version of Coca-Cola classic is Coke Zero, and it sells less than Diet Coke. If it really was about the taste, Diet Coke wouldn't have sold as well and would have been quickly overtaken by Coke Zero.
The most likely explanation for the failure of New Coke is that it replaced the classic, and an influential minority felt alienated by the change.
In fact, New Coke is based on the Diet Coke recipe, the latter is still a success to this day. The sugar-free version of Coca-Cola classic is Coke Zero, and it sells less than Diet Coke. If it really was about the taste, Diet Coke wouldn't have sold as well and would have been quickly overtaken by Coke Zero.
The most likely explanation for the failure of New Coke is that it replaced the classic, and an influential minority felt alienated by the change.
I think what you have here is akin to the massive errors in polling we see in elections.
The clear reveled preference of the consumer they did not like New Coke, they expressed this by not buy it.
Limited market research will often give the company the answer they are already looking for, there are plenty of examples of this
Further is completely self defeating to New Coke was better than Classic because Coke Zero failed. First off, Coke Zero tastes NOTHING like Classic, To me aspartame is actively bitter to me not sweet. So Diet Coke or Coke Zero or any other drink with aspartame in it is a no go.
But aside from my personal tastes, Diet Coke has the first move advantage for the zero cal beverage, so all of your arguments as to why classic won over coke would apply equally well to why diet won over zero.
Further still, I think there is a massive consumer disparity between the consumers of zero cal soda, and people that want regular soda. Comparing their consumer preferences is going to be very hard
The clear reveled preference of the consumer they did not like New Coke, they expressed this by not buy it.
Limited market research will often give the company the answer they are already looking for, there are plenty of examples of this
Further is completely self defeating to New Coke was better than Classic because Coke Zero failed. First off, Coke Zero tastes NOTHING like Classic, To me aspartame is actively bitter to me not sweet. So Diet Coke or Coke Zero or any other drink with aspartame in it is a no go.
But aside from my personal tastes, Diet Coke has the first move advantage for the zero cal beverage, so all of your arguments as to why classic won over coke would apply equally well to why diet won over zero.
Further still, I think there is a massive consumer disparity between the consumers of zero cal soda, and people that want regular soda. Comparing their consumer preferences is going to be very hard
Coke Zero is way better than diet. Yes, it still doesn’t taste completely like classic coke, but it is good enough that if you want to cut back on sugar it’s a decent option. Diet Coke take a lot of getting used to, you just can’t start on it without lots of willpower. Most of Coke Zero’s increasing market share is coming from classic coke drinkers (and is pulling in more men than Diet Coke did) - it should become more popular than Diet Coke in a few years, so I’m not really sure why you think Diet Coke has won?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/05/health/diet-soda-vs-zero-suga...
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/05/health/diet-soda-vs-zero-suga...
I did not make the claim it did, the parent comment above the one you replied to make the claim I just did not challenge or research it because I do not care which wins they are both gross
which one wins is irrelevant to the primary point about rebranding things
which one wins is irrelevant to the primary point about rebranding things
If Coke Zero steals market share from Classic Coke, it is a net win overall. Suffice it to say, Coke Zero is coke's biggest hit in a long time, commercially speaking.
It actually succeeded well in marketing tests (or so I've heard). In small doses, people preferred it's more Pepsi-like taste over Coca-Cola. It's just over the course of a full soda that the opposite is true. I think the reasoning was some survey that indicated Pepsi was better liked or something like that which spooked them and led to this scenario.
Note: I've never had New Coke (was before my time). I'd love for them to bring it back in a limited form just to try it.
Note: I've never had New Coke (was before my time). I'd love for them to bring it back in a limited form just to try it.
Pepsi is also gross...
Mountain Dew is acceptable response when you order a Coke and they respond with "We have Pepsi"..
inversely if you order Mountain Dew and they say "We have Mello Yellow" you respond with "Coke please" because Mello Yellow is gross
:)
Mountain Dew is acceptable response when you order a Coke and they respond with "We have Pepsi"..
inversely if you order Mountain Dew and they say "We have Mello Yellow" you respond with "Coke please" because Mello Yellow is gross
:)
You want an SEO position at X Corp?
Anyone can have an SEO position wherever they like at the low, low cost of $45Bn
Coke had Cocaine?
It had coca extract, it still does, but now, the cocaine is removed.
The extracted cocaine is used by the pharmaceutical industry, as a bonus for top level executives.
Yes, the last part is a joke, but it is really used in medicine as a local anesthetic.
The extracted cocaine is used by the pharmaceutical industry, as a bonus for top level executives.
Yes, the last part is a joke, but it is really used in medicine as a local anesthetic.
How can he build an everything app when he fired a good portion of the engineering team? He will need to hire more people which seems antithetical to his original plan. An everything app will cost a lot of money which is going to put Twitter in an even bigger hole.
Tbf, although I pretty much disagree with everything about Musk's approach to life, I kinda buy this. However, I think that should go hand-in-hand with the twitter trademark being released and usable by a service that approximates the original. Maybe Jack Dorsey would snap it up and save us from the appallingly bad name that is "Bluesky".
I would've simply rolled Twitter up into the larger X app. Tweeting being the method of communication for the X ecosystem.
I would have also waited to roll out the name until I actually had something to show for it. But what do I know.
I would have also waited to roll out the name until I actually had something to show for it. But what do I know.
It's interesting to examine this website with the thousands of trademarks for "X". Some are extremely stylized while others are just the letter X. Some are specific to particular colors. Some cover very narrow areas. Microsoft has a lot of trademarks here, but Apple shows up too.
https://trademarks.justia.com/search?q=X
https://trademarks.justia.com/search?q=X
Elon Musk also did own x.com in the 1990s. [1] It was sold, but he repurchased it several years ago and left the page to resolve to a simple "x" index. [2] This usage was before Microsoft's 2003 registration.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/19991114130555/http://x.com/mana...
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20230401142845/http://x.com/
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/19991114130555/http://x.com/mana...
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20230401142845/http://x.com/
Elon must have been aware that a single letter can cause a trademark issue. After all, Tesla has models S, 3, X, Y because Ford ready had an "E"
The subliminal message nearly escaped me.
I always thought the Tesla naming scheme was inspired by Model T
The Model T was a S3XY car in its day.
To explain most of Elon Musk's decisions, you have to start by thinking what a teenage boy would do.
and (most importantly i think) a T!
Most important Ford model, sure. But not relevant to what he's trying to spell out.
uh, took me a while!
The owners of “X” box? Who woulda thunk it.
Now then, of course Musk can challenge it, and given his domain ownership, possibly successfully even.
But given the scads of lawyers who Musk owes money to, yet is not paying, who will take the fight on?
Now then, of course Musk can challenge it, and given his domain ownership, possibly successfully even.
But given the scads of lawyers who Musk owes money to, yet is not paying, who will take the fight on?
Really have no idea what you’re referring to with the legal bill things. Other than the company that represented the Twitter deal, which is in the middle of a lawsuit over their charging practices. Seems like you’re mixing up trumps legal history with Musk.
Owning a domain doesn't preclude others having ip priority.
It's about 'Extant Use', not existence.
It's about 'Extant Use', not existence.
It's kind of dumb that someone could trademark a letter.
You can only trademark the use of that letter in a specific context - you can't blanket stop people from using an 'X' or even calling themselves 'X' - so long as there's no brand confusion. As mentioned in a different post there's Delta Airlines, Delta Faucets, Delta Fans and Delta Power Supplies. The Microsoft/Meta trademark happens to be literally the use of 'X' as a brand in the social network domain, lol.
Between that and the requirement that they be defended, honestly, I think trademarks are one of the forms of IP that I like the most.
Between that and the requirement that they be defended, honestly, I think trademarks are one of the forms of IP that I like the most.
Even in that context there's limited enforcement available for something so generic.
You might very well think that, but I've read articles saying [1] that Apple has engaged in legal battles with Fruit Union Suisse and a cycle path. It has even set its sights on logos that involve other fruits, like oranges and pears [2].
While you and I might think it's obviously legal to start Apple Airlines or Apple Faucets or Apple Fans, apparently this is not obvious to Apple's trademark lawyers.
I'm not sure intellectual property law operates according to any rational rules that can be understood by us mere mortals.
[1] https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-vs-apples-trademark-ba... [2] https://archive.is/MKQpW
While you and I might think it's obviously legal to start Apple Airlines or Apple Faucets or Apple Fans, apparently this is not obvious to Apple's trademark lawyers.
I'm not sure intellectual property law operates according to any rational rules that can be understood by us mere mortals.
[1] https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-vs-apples-trademark-ba... [2] https://archive.is/MKQpW
Have they won any of these frivolous suits? Don’t think so, they’re lawyers are trying to push as far as they go but they aren’t ignorant of the law.
this is just how trademark works, and it's mostly okay. it also sounds dumb that park tool can trademark the color blue, or kubota can trademark the color orange.
but park tool's trademark is only in the context of bicycle repair tools, and kubota's is only for tractors. the law just isn't that dumb, it's interpreted by courts and real people, who are capable of saying "no, that's dumb" if something is dumb. kubota can keep their trademark, and everybody else can keep making orange things as long as those things aren't tractors or tractor-like things that are going to get confused with kubota products.
similarly, any somewhat reasonable person will be able to see that twitter's rebrand to "X" isn't really going to confuse anybody into thinking they're using a microsoft product, so depite it being a very bad name it's probably not actually going to run afoul of anybody's trademarks.
but park tool's trademark is only in the context of bicycle repair tools, and kubota's is only for tractors. the law just isn't that dumb, it's interpreted by courts and real people, who are capable of saying "no, that's dumb" if something is dumb. kubota can keep their trademark, and everybody else can keep making orange things as long as those things aren't tractors or tractor-like things that are going to get confused with kubota products.
similarly, any somewhat reasonable person will be able to see that twitter's rebrand to "X" isn't really going to confuse anybody into thinking they're using a microsoft product, so depite it being a very bad name it's probably not actually going to run afoul of anybody's trademarks.
>any somewhat reasonable person will be able to see that twitter's rebrand to "X" isn't really going to confuse anybody
I feel that reasonable people and the people who suffer from Musk Derangement Syndrome (seemingly a lot of the people here...) are two very different groups.
I feel that reasonable people and the people who suffer from Musk Derangement Syndrome (seemingly a lot of the people here...) are two very different groups.
Zilog attempted to trademark Z. They failed.
What about Nissan Z? Surely it was never open season for other automakers to name a model that, right?
The Tesla Model 3 was supposed to be the Model E, but Ford wouldn't give up the mark.
https://www.businessinsider.com/ford-model-e-elon-musk-tesla...
https://www.businessinsider.com/ford-model-e-elon-musk-tesla...
This is a bad example as they would be direct competitors within the same market.
The trademark is probably "Nissan Z", not "Z".
That's the context needed, someone can call their car a Nissan Silvia and expect to fight a Toyota Silvia trademark infringement. But I suspect you may not even beable to fight say, a Ferrari Silvia, since they aren't likely competing contexts.
I'm sure that Russian troops don't care about trademarks.
What about colours? Could I trademark #906090?
For a particular purpose or category, yes. E.g. https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/9-brands-trademarked-color
That is insane.
What else? Is taste trademarkable? Or some kind of smells? Or maybe a tone/frequency?
What else? Is taste trademarkable? Or some kind of smells? Or maybe a tone/frequency?
If a complete rebranding to X actually happens, I wonder if someone else is allowed to take over the Twitter brand.
But I suspect what will happen is people will continue to call it Twitter and the X name will not stick.
But I suspect what will happen is people will continue to call it Twitter and the X name will not stick.
> But I suspect what will happen is people will continue to call it Twitter and the X name will not stick.
Me too, the problem is that you cannot convert X to a verb. "They x'ed this and that" sounds much dumber than "They tweeted this and that".
Me too, the problem is that you cannot convert X to a verb. "They x'ed this and that" sounds much dumber than "They tweeted this and that".
After "Let that sink in", we have "I X'ed Twitter".
I think you're right, HN and news websites are the only places that Facebook is referenced as "Meta", and that's been the name for a couple of years now.
You mean "Facebook" as a company name, presumably? Isn't the social network still called "Facebook"?
"The company formerly know as Twitter".
How about "the app formerly known as Twitter", to make the acronym read nicely? I think I'm indeed going to start calling it TAFKAT. :)
There is a german saying: "Satz mit X, war wohl nix." that comes to mind. Anti-Search Engine Optimisation. The world has really passed google by, if this is a valid option.
Idiomatic translation: Well, that was a failure.
If it is just a trademark issue and not logo design, could Twitter just make it x.com? Elon made x.com in 1999. He could pitch it as a revival rather than simple X the company.
If he had the trademark then, he wouldn't have it 20 years later without having used and defended it in the intervening time.
I don't know how that works though. What if it just dies on the grapevine and no one uses it for 2 decades? AFAIK It got merged into Paypal then was mostly just killed off as a functional trademark
Meta, Microsoft Apple and Google have all used X for one thing or another. Most recently an X trademark in the context of social media was bought by Meta from Microsoft when they acquired Mixer, which became Facebook Gaming.
Plot twist: PayPal will sue them now for using their IP from 20 years ago
X.com seems a better brand than X anyway…
Not to be confused with XCOM.
Confirmed, the successor to Starship will be SkyRanger, later to be replaced by the Avenger once they master Elerium-115
Meta also owns the trademark in the context of social networks.
But theirs is a design mark, just the design is trademarked, not the letter "X" itself. Important distinction
Probably the only thing that's actually trademarkable if your brand is a single letter.
Maybe, but I'm hoping Meta and Twitter will somehow get into a long, and very, very expensive courtroom battle over this.
[deleted]
Meta and X then...
Meta's trademark registration: https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87980831&caseType=SERIAL_...
I rather see a pair of angle brackets there.
The new Twitter logo immediately brought to mind the X-Window system one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System
The new Twitter logo immediately brought to mind the X-Window system one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System
Wow. That probably only looks like an X if you're drunk and viewing from a distance.
Bizarre that Zuck and Musk and I suppose "Goog" can have these spasms of inability to understand branding. Bezos needs a fit of it so we can rename Amazon to, uh, Fwoop. Why not.
This has to be the most moronic part of Elon's plan.
Firing everyone to improve operating margins, I understand that.
Iterating on features rapidly, even if they're not quite ready for prime time? That makes a lot of sense if you're trying to beat out the competition.
Rebranding your website and conference rooms? This sounds like a stupid waste of time and effort. If you wanted to create X the next twitter, just do a start up. Everyone would have signed up just because Elon Musk was using it. You didn't need to buy twitter for that.
Just stupid.
Firing everyone to improve operating margins, I understand that.
Iterating on features rapidly, even if they're not quite ready for prime time? That makes a lot of sense if you're trying to beat out the competition.
Rebranding your website and conference rooms? This sounds like a stupid waste of time and effort. If you wanted to create X the next twitter, just do a start up. Everyone would have signed up just because Elon Musk was using it. You didn't need to buy twitter for that.
Just stupid.
He could have easily created a second app and done exactly what Meta did with Threads and had instant signups with a Twitter account, connecting the two. His plan is comically awful. Unfortunately, I loved Twitter, and felt it was the most valuable social network in terms of instant content, but it is now being ruined.
> but it is now being ruined.
I'm not a Twitter user, how has the user experience changed since Elon's taking over?
I'm not a Twitter user, how has the user experience changed since Elon's taking over?
The new prioritization algorithm tends to shift the lowest quality posts to the top in comments and the algorithmic feed. They also broke old (good) Tweetdeck, and have announced that new (bad) Tweetdeck will cost money. The quality of ads on the service has also declined tremendously. They've begun restricting other functionality as well like rate-limiting tweet viewing and direct messages.
The sibling explains well, although it's missing key detail. If you pay Musk $8/month, your replies to tweets will appear above those who do not. Just imagine how that might work here at HN, and multiply it by the "way worse actors" factor to get an idea of the result.
Since 'verification' is now just a paid service, it's also much harder to separate bad actors from good actors. There are other minor changes that have degraded the service, but it's difficult to tell if they're permanent or just another live experiment.
Since 'verification' is now just a paid service, it's also much harder to separate bad actors from good actors. There are other minor changes that have degraded the service, but it's difficult to tell if they're permanent or just another live experiment.
>Since 'verification' is now just a paid service, it's also much harder to separate bad actors from good actors.
Doesn't the fact that a payment method has been setup _help_ and not _hinder_ the process of separating bad actors from good? I'm not a huge Twitter user by any means but I would think that verification step would cut down on automated spam.
Doesn't the fact that a payment method has been setup _help_ and not _hinder_ the process of separating bad actors from good? I'm not a huge Twitter user by any means but I would think that verification step would cut down on automated spam.
if twitter were very strongly moderated it might have helped, but as it stands now it's a $8 fee for scammers to push their scams to the top of any thread. Even if they get banned every so often it's a great value proposition. Can't tell you the number of verified 𝕏 crypto scams I've seen since the rebrand, most of which seem to still be up.
I believe the old verification system actually checked that somebody was who they claimed to be — obviously this required human intervention. Verification now just checks that somebody can pay $8/month (or promise to as a once-off, then cancel, maybe?) So a bot pretending to be Joe Biden or Donald Trump would appear to be legitimate.
> You didn't need to buy twitter for that.
You do need to buy Twitter to avoid running afoul of the SEC.
You do need to buy (something) to dump lots of Tesla stock without cratering it.
You do need to buy Twitter to avoid running afoul of the SEC.
You do need to buy (something) to dump lots of Tesla stock without cratering it.
> You do need to buy Twitter to avoid running afoul of the SEC.
Huh?
Huh?
At some point in the process, there is a worry that Musks public statements about buying Twitter when he owned like 10% and then not making a real effort to do so may have been investigated as a pump and dump (especially if he followed through in his threat to sell his stock if he wasn't allowed to buy it).
Now, I would say that was maybe a month of a long process when that was true.
Now, I would say that was maybe a month of a long process when that was true.
Oh I see. Yeah, unless the fines for that were going to be several billion, sounds like an insane reason to buy Twitter.
Musk's apparent thinking was that it would have been easier to wriggle his way out of the Twitter purchase than the fines (around 1bn, if I recall correctly)
turned out not to be the case!
turned out not to be the case!
It's not "X", it's "𝕏" (U+1D54F)
Maybe he should trademark this unicode character instead of letter "X".
Maybe he should trademark this unicode character instead of letter "X".
There is also this site, https://x.company, which is a division of Google / Alphabet... It will be very confusing...
[deleted]
Seems like the only people making money in this whole thing is the company hired to change the sign every other week when Musk decides to make a joke or do a sudden rebrand.
Unfortunately, even the sign company is having troubles: https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/24/23140317/twitter-sign-sf-...
Poorly titled and I'm surprised nobody is calling it out. The body of the article shows that there is an entire minefield of trademark issues with several companies and entities to navigate, but the blame is being placed solely on MS' feet as though they should have known, 20 years ago, what Twitter would be doing today. A better one might be Twitter’s Rebrand Is A Field Of Nightmares.
It's also pretty close to the logo for x.org.
[deleted]
What?? You mean Elon made another colossal mistake, bbbut hes such a business genius...
I enjoy reading the expert opinions of all the main characters who don't even have a basis point, let alone a fraction, of the man's net worth.
I do think it's important to look at a person's past accomplishments when deciding whether to listen to them or not. I'd even say it's the most important thing. But is there a line where a person's present actions start to outweigh their past successes?
Yeah so hard to make money during the Dotcom boom with all your dad's apartheid emerald mine money.
How does his boot taste?
How does his boot taste?
Musk's dad gave him $250,000,000,000? That must have been a lot of emeralds!
What boot, malaka? Maybe you should grow up a bit and realize your persecution complex is self-induced.
What boot, malaka? Maybe you should grow up a bit and realize your persecution complex is self-induced.
famously, no one with a lot of money has ever made a bad business decision
[deleted]
They made the change but https://x.com still leads to a GoDaddy parking page for me…
No it doesn't, it's been redirecting to twitter.com for a couple of days now. If you're seeing a GoDaddy page then theres some incredibly slow dns caching in your setup.
Your browser can also be caching the HTTP redirect itself, especially if they messed up on setting cache lifetimes on it.
It now redirects to twitter for me, so I guess it was something in the chain that hadn’t refreshed!
Godaddy? That made me chuckle. The former richest man uses GD. GD is not known for it's absolutely strong guardiance of domains as a registrar. The web ist full of examples. Even namecheap has a better reputation as a registrar.
Yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36854166
https://onlineornot.com/guidelines-to-help-avoid-losing-your...
Yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36854166
https://onlineornot.com/guidelines-to-help-avoid-losing-your...
I'm looking forward to the martial arts combat between Musk and Nadella now.
Wasn’t x.ai some kind of meeting scheduling startup about ten years ago?
Yes. But then folks realized that the supposed-AI tool actually used people pretending to be bots: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/06/artificia...
X.ai was subsequently acquired in 2021 by Bizzabo: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2021/06/03/224127...
Bizzabo then shut down the X.ai tool: https://www.bizzabo.com/blog/xai-sunset
And then they sold the X.ai domain to you know who: https://www.theverge.com/2023/4/14/23684005/elon-musk-new-ai...
X.ai was subsequently acquired in 2021 by Bizzabo: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2021/06/03/224127...
Bizzabo then shut down the X.ai tool: https://www.bizzabo.com/blog/xai-sunset
And then they sold the X.ai domain to you know who: https://www.theverge.com/2023/4/14/23684005/elon-musk-new-ai...
All the actions combined come down to a fictional handbook written by Musk:
"How to destroy a international brand and company properly and fast"
I can't believe it was intentional, but i can't imagine any reasons for this, i could only add my speculation.
"How to destroy a international brand and company properly and fast"
I can't believe it was intentional, but i can't imagine any reasons for this, i could only add my speculation.
Trademark law is fairly complicated . One of the aspects that is often overlooked is that you actually have to enforce your trademark rights in order to keep your trademark. Failure to do that, weakens your grip on it.
In the case of this particular trademark claim, it's likely to be fairly weak for MS. There are countless legitimate uses of the letter X. They've not been going after a lot of companies over this. And there's also the notion that MS launched the x-box after the x.com domain was registered by Elon Musk. So, any dispute over this could end up being quite hairy for MS. I doubt MS lawyers are going to even bother with a cease and desist letter.
Not a laywer of course; this is just my understanding of trademark law. It gets even more complicated when you consider that laws vary internationally.
In the case of this particular trademark claim, it's likely to be fairly weak for MS. There are countless legitimate uses of the letter X. They've not been going after a lot of companies over this. And there's also the notion that MS launched the x-box after the x.com domain was registered by Elon Musk. So, any dispute over this could end up being quite hairy for MS. I doubt MS lawyers are going to even bother with a cease and desist letter.
Not a laywer of course; this is just my understanding of trademark law. It gets even more complicated when you consider that laws vary internationally.
Isn't it even weaker for elon, since he lost the domain around same time that xbox was introduced and only got it back 2017 and even then he said that he had no plans for it.
Doesn't matter if no-one else has a credible, enforcable claim.
Quick recap of a rebranding mess:
- X axes a renowned, recognizable tech brand
- X was done hastily, without proper planning
- X won't be a dictionary word, hardly a verb, not anything cultural
- X means nothing really, like a branding "*", the algebra/programming x, even more generic than "meta" or "alphabet"
- X is another gazillion brands, logos and trademarks
- X is impossible to search
- X is so X-Rated
- X certifies that Elon is nuts and has no idea what to do with this acquisition
- Users are vowing to resist, refraining from using X whenever possible
But it DOES make sense in Elon's World:
- Twitter as we know it is gone anyway, so we might as well call it... X
- X is his SpaceX thing, his pre-PayPal made-me-rich thing, his fetish letter, his Rosebud
- X is like sex, like Tesla models S,3,X,Y - a cool "bro" brand, fits Elon Musk maturity level very well because sex sells (at least for cars and rockets it does)
- No need to search for X. Search is dead. X is the new search, especially once it becomes a (sentient?) AI [1] https://x.ai
- X creates user resistance, friction and backlash, which means it's polarizing and Elon only thrives in polarized ecosystems
- Polarization arouses the media so much it will have free press for a while
- It sounds like something out of a Marvel movie. Like a villain's world-threatening crime syndicate.
- "It's just X, just fucking X, it's really badass dude"
My take on this:
- Twitter had to rebrand anyway if it were to evolve into a disrupting Musk company - it made no sense to just be the old, stagnated Twitter minus headcount, moderation and ad revenue. Another logo or word by itself would not cut it or be up to the task. It had to be something in-your-face like... X.
- X stock will probably soar when it hits Wall Street (again). The marketing actually feels solid or at least more in line with his other companies, and definitely stronger than Alphabet and Meta's wishy-washy rebranding. Now X Corp needs to deliver new moneys, beyond the dwindling ad revenue to prove itself as a Google and Meta's worse nightmare.
- X axes a renowned, recognizable tech brand
- X was done hastily, without proper planning
- X won't be a dictionary word, hardly a verb, not anything cultural
- X means nothing really, like a branding "*", the algebra/programming x, even more generic than "meta" or "alphabet"
- X is another gazillion brands, logos and trademarks
- X is impossible to search
- X is so X-Rated
- X certifies that Elon is nuts and has no idea what to do with this acquisition
- Users are vowing to resist, refraining from using X whenever possible
But it DOES make sense in Elon's World:
- Twitter as we know it is gone anyway, so we might as well call it... X
- X is his SpaceX thing, his pre-PayPal made-me-rich thing, his fetish letter, his Rosebud
- X is like sex, like Tesla models S,3,X,Y - a cool "bro" brand, fits Elon Musk maturity level very well because sex sells (at least for cars and rockets it does)
- No need to search for X. Search is dead. X is the new search, especially once it becomes a (sentient?) AI [1] https://x.ai
- X creates user resistance, friction and backlash, which means it's polarizing and Elon only thrives in polarized ecosystems
- Polarization arouses the media so much it will have free press for a while
- It sounds like something out of a Marvel movie. Like a villain's world-threatening crime syndicate.
- "It's just X, just fucking X, it's really badass dude"
My take on this:
- Twitter had to rebrand anyway if it were to evolve into a disrupting Musk company - it made no sense to just be the old, stagnated Twitter minus headcount, moderation and ad revenue. Another logo or word by itself would not cut it or be up to the task. It had to be something in-your-face like... X.
- X stock will probably soar when it hits Wall Street (again). The marketing actually feels solid or at least more in line with his other companies, and definitely stronger than Alphabet and Meta's wishy-washy rebranding. Now X Corp needs to deliver new moneys, beyond the dwindling ad revenue to prove itself as a Google and Meta's worse nightmare.
If you ever want to understand what living in a tech bubble is like, reading the comments here should be sufficient. People feeding off each others conspiracies and hate for Musk. Hilarious to watch
blowing up one of the single most recognizable brands in the entire world so you can indulge your puerile obsession you have with the letter "x" and drive the 44bn albatross you were forced to buy because of your inability to watch your mouth even deeper into unprofitability is world-historic business genius mindset. you guys wouldn't understand.
Off-topic I know, but does anyone know the reasoning behind Elon taking $44B and running Twitter into the ground?
Probably just human nature, right? The normal person version of this is getting excited about a Raspberry Pi, buying one, failing to do your project on the first try, and then shoving the thing into a drawer you never open. If you're the richest person in the world, you have the unique ability to tack on 9 zeroes for your "it could be good" speculative projects.
Oh, is this why I haven't been able to look at twitter links (without an account)?
So is this how Elon Musk performs when there is no board of directors or shareholders to rein him in? Because this entire rebranding effort looks like something he woke up and declared on a whim. Zero coordination or planning.
what if every alphabet is within their trademark jurisdiction, then our capitalism is basically doomed.
I think that "Y" would have much better name.
Alice: it's called Y
Bob: But why?
Alice: Yeah, Y
Bob: no, I mean, why?
Alice: Yeah, you heard right, Y.
...
Alice: it's called Y
Bob: But why?
Alice: Yeah, Y
Bob: no, I mean, why?
Alice: Yeah, you heard right, Y.
...
He's done just fine considering all of the fud pieces spread by mainstream outlets and hacker news comments that are mostly lies and only part of the available information about him and his companies.
The salt amongst engineers / developers that are not working for his companies should be a thing of study, methinks it's mostly driven by jealousy.
Looking forward to what comes from all this 𝕏 stuff.
The salt amongst engineers / developers that are not working for his companies should be a thing of study, methinks it's mostly driven by jealousy.
Looking forward to what comes from all this 𝕏 stuff.
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87980831&caseType=SERIAL_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixer_(service)