Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Apple Rumored To Want To Buy Twitter

Posted by kdawson on Tue May 05, 2009 04:51 PM
from the and-a-pony dept.
OSXGlitch writes "A post on TechCrunch this morning extends the rumor that Apple wants to buy Twitter with part of their massive cash reserve (estimated at nearly $29B). The Twitterverse is alive with speculation that the price being discussed is $700 million. This goes against reports that Twitter's founders aren't interested in selling, and that they estimate the value of the company at around $250 million. Two questions: How do we all feel about the possibility of Apple owning Twitter? And, can Twitter decline an offer that is nearly three times their estimated worth?"
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Tuesday May 05 2009, @04:52PM (#27838371) Homepage Journal

    and nothing of value will be lost.

    • by Stele (9443) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @05:06PM (#27838627) Homepage

      I've never used twitter...

      ...and nothing of value will be lost.

      • by MCSEBear (907831) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @06:09PM (#27839483)
        Hopefully, the cycle of companies with large expenses and no profits being purchased by the stupid will come to an end. We all know how profitable Skype [wikipedia.org] has been for after eBay paid 2.6 Billion dollars for them. Not to even mention how profitable Youtube [wikipedia.org] has been since Google paid a mere 1.65 Billion dollars for them.

        Apple is sitting on a buttload of cash right now, but wouldn't it be a hell of a lot more logical for them to build a fab with it? They certainly have been gathering in a whole lot of chip design expertise lately.
        • by Yizzerin (979112) <yizzerin&gmail,com> on Tuesday May 05 2009, @08:28PM (#27840693)
          I think your general point has merit, but your examples might not be 100% correct.

          We all know how profitable Skype [wikipedia.org] has been for after eBay paid 2.6 Billion dollars for them.

          Skype actually has been profitable [skypejournal.com] recently. That said, Skype does not match up well with eBay's overall business model and I remember reading that they are looking to sell it.

          Not to even mention how profitable Youtube [wikipedia.org] has been since Google paid a mere 1.65 Billion dollars for them.

          Could it be a branding/goodwill tool that also helps them drive users to their search? They certainly paid an exorbitant amount for the eventual profitability, regardless, but Google and YouTube are now both cultural icons.

        • by Firehed (942385) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @09:31PM (#27841083) Homepage

          During the time of the YouTube acquisition, it was often discussed that they might have done it in order to set precedents for copyright laws and other distribution-related stuff (net neutrality, etc.) since Google has better lawyers than YouTube could have hoped to afford at the time. Theory being that if Youtube was sued, they wouldn't have the funding to fight unfair charges and a precedent would be set against them and other providers of free content; whereas with Google backing them they'd have the funding and/or legal team to win and have it go in their favor. It sucks that our court system favors who has the better lawyers and not what's actually in the law books, but that's life.

          Skype, on the other hand, was just a stupid choice by eBay. But you can't expect much different from a company that's founded around the very concept of bad buying decisions.

    • by Animaether (411575) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @05:09PM (#27838689) Journal

      your post is true both ways ;)

      <QuantumG> I will quit twitter
      <Twitter> and nothing of value will be lost

      • by davester666 (731373) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @05:18PM (#27838835) Journal

        If anything, this is just an attempt to link Twitter to a company that has a very large wad of cash (which isn't that common right now), as well as one that mass name recognition (namely Apple), in order to increase Twitter's apparent value, either for more funding or to sell part/all of the company to somebody else.

        Nobody at Apple is stupid enough to buy an SMS service.

        If there was somebody this dumb at Apple, they would have already spent way to much for an instant messaging service (I bet you could buy AOL's IM service at fire-sale prices if you took the rest of AOL with it from TimeWarner).

        • by Firehed (942385) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @09:51PM (#27841219) Homepage

          Nobody at Apple is stupid enough to buy an SMS service.

          Actually, when you phrase it like that, it really makes perfect sense. As a micro-messaging service, it wouldn't make much sense as an Apple property. As something to replace SMS, I would actually see it being a very valuable addition to their lineup as an iPhone customer (provided it stays as open as it is now). Apple has already been able to bully AT&T into giving up MUCH more than anyone would have thought possible simply by being so damn successful over the last few years, it's actually not out of the question that they'd want to push that further.

          Of note: I won't pay any extra for SMS messages on my iPhone. The concept of paying $0.25 for 160B of data which is built into the cellular service overhead and costs them absolutely nothing to maintain is absurd. $5/mo for unlimited texting is only slightly less insane. I get 200 texts built into my normal plan (first-gen iPhone) which is fine for what I do. However, it would be a fantastic value-add to get around that entirely by, in effect, replacing the SMS app on the phone with a Twitter client of sorts (at least for direct messages) - even if only to spite AT&T. I already use DMs in favor of SMS for my friends that have a twitter account (most of them) simply because it doesn't count towards my text message limit.

          There is, of course, no shortage of Twitter apps on the iPhone (nor most smartforms I think; standard phones can still do it over sms) so it's not much of an issue except for the lack of "push" functionality. I don't know how that will be handled in the 3.0 SDK but I doubt it'll be as seamless as SMS and phone calls are since there's the intermediate server that everything funnels through.

          If they could pull off something where they go behind the carriers' backs to make it a free, open protocol to contact cellular phones, it would be awesome. Doesn't matter whether it's Twitter or not, but it's already got a large userbase and is well-suited to the application. The only reason that Twitter is even relevant to the picture is that it seems like the only way to, in effect, make SMS free* - as it should be.

          *Maybe a buck a month for unlimited. The current situation where bandwidth to the ISS is cheaper goes well beyond ridiculous. I don't think you could use an entire megabyte of bandwidth a month over SMS.

          • by Liquidrage (640463) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @08:22PM (#27840649)
            Yes, because right now Jabber = Twitter?
            You're confusing "like twitter" with "is twitter". I doubt it's hard to make a cola that tastes a lot better then Coke. At least it wouldn't cost as much as they spend on advertising. But trying to beat them wouldn't work out well because the brand is established.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2009, @05:20PM (#27838867)

        i could offer you $50 to sell me your genitals

        and nothing of value will be lost.

      • by Mean Variance (913229) <mean.variance@gmail.com> on Tuesday May 05 2009, @05:33PM (#27839073)

        any privately held company is under no compulsion to sell anything regardless of incentive.

        Yeah. Craigslist immediately comes to mind.

  • by levell (538346) * on Tuesday May 05 2009, @04:53PM (#27838387) Homepage

    This Guardian article [guardian.co.uk] argues that the story is complete hot air, the two sources (Tech Crunch and ValleyWag) are both unconvinced themselves and the Twitter execs seem to be in the wrong part of the US to be locked into negotiations with Apple.

    Leaving aside whether it is true or not, it seems a very strange fit. Apple doesn't seem to gain very much in its core business from the acquisition

    • by s73v3r (963317) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @05:02PM (#27838561)
      Twitter doesn't fit in with Apple's core business model, and Apple doesn't seem to like wasting money and time on stuff that doesn't make them lots of money in return. What happened to the good ol days of Apple speculative rumors, when the rumors were at least plausible?
      • What happened to the good ol days of Apple speculative rumors, when the rumors were at least plausible?

        kdawson?

      • by RiotingPacifist (1228016) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @06:12PM (#27839515)

        that's why they need twitter, if they control twitter they can make the rumors believable again and this allows them to make more money!

        • I think Apple and Twitter are a perfect fit.

          I think Microsoft and Twitter are a perfect fit.

          There, fixed it for you.

          New rumour:

          "Microsoft, after cutting another 3,000 workers today, announced that they will be buying Twitter, the sms service that doesn't know how to make money, with the savings. In a cooperative deal with Disney, it will now be rebranded as TweetyPie Live, and will include such features as Microsoft Office integration.

          As Steve Balmer said, "We're excited about this deal. Now you'll be able to update your spreadsheet literally in a tweet. And for all those laid-off Microsofties, you'll be able to dynamically update your resumes from the next version of Word, provided you respect the license not to tweet anything bad or derogatory, or publish negative benchmarks, or say that I need deodorant as much as RMS does.

          We're also going to integrate it with Microsoft Live Search so that we can use Microsoft AdVantage to generate more pay-per-click revenue from the tweet stream. And we'll import the smilies from MS - Messenger. And give it a ribbon bar. And embed it in your car mp3 player, so you can tweet-n-drive. This will be big! It has the potential to be the next Zune!

    • by xenocide2 (231786) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @07:57PM (#27840485) Homepage

      The question then is, who started the rumor? Probably the twitter execs themselves, who are in negotiations with a different party and need some leverage to prop a valuation greater than zero.

  • Don't care. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dyinobal (1427207) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @04:54PM (#27838407)
    Twitter could be owned by the legion of doom and it still wouldn't make it interesting or remotely useful.
  • by religious freak (1005821) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @04:54PM (#27838411)

    And, can Twitter decline an offer that is nearly three times their estimated worth?"

    And how exactly was that value derived? Value is based on the present value of future earnings, and AFAIK, twitter has none. Any number in the hundreds of millions of dollars should be seriously looked at. What I don't understand is what Apple would do with Twitter.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2009, @06:06PM (#27839467)

      The value is based on a consistent 24/7 wankfest known as Twitter, and a large base of 21st century snake oil salesmen aka social media commentators.

      Want to see what Twitter is really about? Go watch it during a large scale emergency (find out whatever the hashtag is, then watch the bullshit fly in). It's the biggest wankfest in the history of wankfests. Every second comment is something like, "OMG TWITTER HAS COME OF AGE" or "OMG TWITTER IS REALLY SHINING THROUGH ON THIS EMERGENCY".

      But when you look past the bullshit, it's just the same shit OVER AND OVER with nothing of value offered whatsoever. People linking to already existing news stories. People retweeting non-sourced rumors. You could subscribe to a variety of RSS news feeds and get the same (but better) information, or go down to the local bar and listen to drunk guy offer his opinion.

      I have watched twitter during the Victorian Bushfires, and the recent Israel-Palestine debacle. Both times the majority of the tweets were crap. They didn't offer shit, it was a mish-mash of chaos, rumors, linking to news sources, and poor information.

      Seriously, the media severely overplays the value of twitter. Probably cause it's the ultimate representation of the 21st century: mass democracy (everyone has an opinion) + short sound bites for the ADHD/MTV generation = popularity with black rimmed glasses wearing social media nerds.

      Don't get me wrong, there are some parts of it that are ok. If you had an existing (closed) social network it'd be alright to communicate to each other (but you could do the same on facebook).

  • Business Plan (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MrMarket (983874) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @04:54PM (#27838417) Journal

    1) Launch free web service
    2) ???
    3) Profit

    Can someone remind me how Twitter makes money. Or, at least how to justify a $700 million valuation?

    • by presidenteloco (659168) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @05:05PM (#27838615)

      Find out interesting keywords in what people say they are doing or talking about.

      Advertise something local and highly related to that person, in the form of a discount offer or something.

      Google ads for the attention-span-of-a-gnat generation?

      • wut (Score:4, Funny)

        by copponex (13876) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @06:31PM (#27839689) Homepage

        I blve we r the smartest gen ever! My parents r dum and read 2$ newspprs 4 hours. I can read 30 secs on tw and get same info 4 0$ on my cpu!

    • Re:Business Plan (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rackserverdeals (1503561) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @05:13PM (#27838749) Homepage Journal

      The ??? used to be selling the attention you generate on your free service to advertisers. Google AdSense being the most profitable one for many. But it seems like the attention economy [howtonotma...online.com] is coming to an end, or at least the potential has been greatly reduced.

      Twitter doesn't include ads in their tweets or even on their website. According to this Create a Revenue Model for Twitter contest [businessinsider.com] they don't generate any revenue.

      Twitter isn't worth anything right now other than what investors would like to get back if they sell. I can't think of any way that their customer base could financially benefit any other company. The folks at Twitter seem to be in the same boat since they haven't been able to generate any significant revenue from their users.

  • Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Tuesday May 05 2009, @04:56PM (#27838445) Homepage

    Is there really much point in buying twitter? How difficult a thing is it to write that application? Or is the purpose almost entirely to grab the existing users?

    And how would this fit into Apple's strategy? I could think of much better ways that Apple could extend their MobileMe service.

    The whole thing seems slightly fishy to me.

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by s73v3r (963317) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @05:00PM (#27838515)
      Its more than the application. Its the millions of users that come with it.
      • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by UnknowingFool (672806) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @05:04PM (#27838591)
        And so did GeoCities and AOL but that didn't work out too well for Yahoo and Time Warner respectively. Users are fickle. They will move to other apps as trends dictate. Really I don't see the benefit to Apple. Now Apple might be talking to Twitter about better collaboration and integration.
      • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by keytoe (91531) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @05:07PM (#27838665) Homepage

        Its more than the application. Its the millions of users that come with it.

        And how many of those millions aren't already included in the millions they have from the iPhone? Or the iTunes Music Store?

        No, I don't buy it - and I bet Apple won't either!

  • Twitcher (Score:3, Insightful)

    by roman_mir (125474) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @04:58PM (#27838475) Homepage

    I don't know, to me this Twitter tool is really synonymous with some sort of a twitch. Wouldn't the more appropriate name be 'Twitcher' with a slogan: Waiting for your twitch!

    Seriously, 700 million USD for this just shows that a dollar is not worth that much today and also it shows that people don't know what else to invest their money into, they would jump on anything, reminds me of selling a pencil at 50% loss but 'making it up in volume'.

    • Re:Twitcher (Score:4, Insightful)

      by tomhudson (43916) <<ac.nortoediv> <ta> <nosduh>> on Tuesday May 05 2009, @05:17PM (#27838815) Homepage Journal

      reminds me of selling a pencil at 50% loss but 'making it up in volume'.

      Easy :

      The quick buck artist pencil seller:

      1. Sell pencil at a 50% loss
      2. Jab pencil in buyer's eye socket
      3. Offer to remove said pencil for 5,000% PROFIT

      The scare-monger pencil seller:

      1. Sell pencils at 50% loss
      2. Start rumour that they cause lead poisoning
      3. Sell "anti-lead-poisoning kits" at mega-PROFIT

      The commodities market manipulator pencil seller:

      1. Sell pencils at 50% loss
      2. Sell pencil sharpener at 5,000% PROFIT
      3. Stop selling pencils and create artificial pencil shortage
      4. Offer to buy pencils at 1,000% over original price
      5. Have confederate sell pencils to speculators at "only" a 500% markup - PROFIT
      6. Announce that pens are the new pencils, buy back speculators pencils at 1 cent on the dollar
      7. Move to another town, lather, rinse, repeat
  • by mevets (322601) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @04:58PM (#27838477)

    Hello, this is a yahoo and I'm a twit...

  • by hwyhobo (1420503) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @04:59PM (#27838489)

    This reminds me of Novell buying Word Perfect. Paid over a billion dollars, couldn't sell for $100m just years later if their life depended on it. If Twitter refuses the offer, they are dumber than a sack of bricks. In a few years no one will pay attention to them. Just another useless, 15-minute-of-fame "Oprah technology".

  • by roc97007 (608802) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @04:59PM (#27838499) Journal

    At first milidly interested in the technology, eventually appalled at the general lack of content.

    Or to put it another way, twitter is the sound of millions of people collectively discovering they have nothing important to say. Or in today's "Pickles", "Is it me, or is the world getting sillier and sillier?"

    • by timholman (71886) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @09:39PM (#27841127)

      Or to put it another way, twitter is the sound of millions of people collectively discovering they have nothing important to say.

      Have you ever watched shows about tribes of baboons or chimps on PBS? And how they spend so much time grooming each other by picking the lice out of each others' hair?

      That's the mental image I get with any social network site. Lots of monkeys, picking the lice out of each others' hair. Except with Twitter, the monkeys shriek about who has found the biggest and juiciest lice, right before they eat them.

  • Brand Name (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tokerat (150341) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @05:17PM (#27838805) Journal

    Twitter has a very well known brand-name, probably about half of which comes from people bitching about it, or cracking jokes ("ok poop is coming out"). The application itself is nothing short of a status message, which where defined as early as May, 1993 (RFC 1459 [faqs.org], Section 5.1) or earlier (RFC 742 [faqs.org], December 1977 - finger w/plan), and there are dozens of "microblogging" sites out there already.

    If anyone buys Twitter, it will only be for the most over hyped and thus well-known up-and-coming brand names of the last couple years.

  • by Black Sabbath (118110) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @05:23PM (#27838925) Homepage

    Twitter. Triumph of humanity [apple.com]

    I admit I don't get the fascination.

    Technically, its DIY IRC channel meets party-line SMS. Cool. The "how" I get.

    But WHY? The "why" completely escapes me. Is Twitter more profound than the inanity of IRC and the incessant texting of pubescent students on public transport?

    At best it looks like a way to share spontaneous brain dumps with mates, at worst it seems like a pathetic attempt at social closeness between a bunch of strangers you wouldn't even look at if you bumped into them.

    Whatever it is - if Twitter is humanity's triumph then we're f**ked.

    Either that or I'm an old fart.

    • by Al Al Cool J (234559) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @09:07PM (#27840957)

      http://search.twitter.com/ [twitter.com]

      Want to know what's happening right now in that major sporting event (or get an update on a somewhat more obscure sporting event)? Want to hear people's views on that great episode of the TV show you just watched, or the latest takes and interesting links on the world's breaking news events.

      If there's buzz about anything or anyone worth buzzing about, you can get it in real time. The world's opinions, raw and unfiltered, aggregated instantly.

      I've been plodding around the Internet for 15 year, and this is the closest I've seen to something that lets you feel the pulse of the beast.

  • twitterverse? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by owlnation (858981) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @05:47PM (#27839243)
    I'd like to meet the person that coined the word "twitterverse". And hurt them. A lot.
  • news flash! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Un pobre guey (593801) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @06:50PM (#27839927) Homepage
    Cupertino, CA, May 5, 2009 - Apple computer is rumored to be buying several flattened cigarette butts on the northwest corner of Castro St. and Central Expressway, in Mountain View, CA for $650 million. The cigarette butts are approximately 40 cm from the nearest curb edge. A squashed aluminum can, possibly a beer can, is in the gutter nearby. A paper bag with the partially wrapped remains of a beef burrito are also lying in close proximity to the cigarette butts, but do not appear to be part of the deal. In any event, a crow has been attempting to unwrap the burrito during most of the morning, presumably to abscond with the remains. Apple spokespersons declined to discuss the deal on the record, but it was made known later that the cigarette butts were in the middle of Silicon Valley, and therefore extremely valuable for that reason alone. One of the cigarette butts reportedly has lipstick stains, but that has not yet been confirmed.
  • by Culture20 (968837) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @09:32PM (#27841089)
    Are none of you seeing the big picture? Apple doesn't want to buy Twitter, the micro-blog service, they want to buy Twitter, the slashdot user. The actual GUY, not the username. They want a slave with a bajillion slashdot sockpuppets to moderate in articles just like this one.
    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by eln (21727) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @05:03PM (#27838571) Homepage

      Twitter is hugely popular and has no earthly idea how to capitalize on that popularity without killing itself. It's like every other Web fad, before long it's going to fade away and be replaced by something at least as inane as it is.

      The only hope for the Twitter founders is to sell to someone with deep pockets and few brains as quickly as possible. I don't know why Apple would want it, but maybe some old media company with more money than brains would.

      • by taxman_10m (41083) on Tuesday May 05 2009, @08:49PM (#27840855)

        There was an article recently that said most twits quit a month after joining. How popular is it relative to facebook? myspace? friendster? My own impression is that it isn't very popular, it just has some very vocal users.

      • by jcr (53032) <jcr@NOspaM.mac.com> on Tuesday May 05 2009, @05:53PM (#27839311) Journal

        Twitter is the most useless waste of time and human resource.

        I don't use it myself, but I've seen it come in handy on a number of occasions. I was at WWDC last year, and I went to a bar with a couple of friends. One of them posted where we were, and twenty minutes later we had a party with about a hundred people in attendance. Rather more convenient than looking up a bunch of people and calling them.

        -jcr