Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Apple

Apple Rumored To Want To Buy Twitter 325

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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Rumored To Want To Buy Twitter

Comments Filter:
  • by levell ( 538346 ) * on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @05:53PM (#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

  • Business Plan (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MrMarket ( 983874 ) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @05:54PM (#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 Dripdry ( 1062282 ) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @05:59PM (#27838497) Journal
    This seems a little like Google acquiring Facebook. What value do either of things generate? While the article may not be true, could we please get away from more DotBomb 2.0 mentality? Maybe Apple wants to spread the rumor to drive up their stock price. See the following, as always re: Apple and Rumors: http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/ [misterbg.org]
  • Re:Business Plan (Score:3, Interesting)

    by religious freak ( 1005821 ) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @06:00PM (#27838523)
    Easy, if you value each tweet at 1 cent, that's how you derive the value. Of course, that's overvaluing each tweet by about 2 cents...

    But seriously, the value would be derived exactly how all these other companies are "valued"... with eyeballs... sort of analogous to the late 90's mania. I'm all for tech, but it's pretty tough to make money with no business model whatsoever.

    Steve leaves and within six months Apple goes and considers doing something really stupid (allegedly). Just shows you how important leadership in tech is. If Apple does this deal, unless they've got some kind of miracle plan, I'd sell any stock I had.
  • by presidenteloco ( 659168 ) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @06:05PM (#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?

  • Re:Business Plan (Score:3, Interesting)

    by michael021689 ( 791941 ) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @06:30PM (#27839015)
    There is a difference?
  • Totally bogus (Score:2, Interesting)

    by angst_ridden_hipster ( 23104 ) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @06:34PM (#27839077) Homepage Journal

    First off, it's not even rumor-mongering -- it's some hack making shit up to increase his pageviews.

    Secondly, it's a stupid idea.

    Thirdly, it ain't gonna happen.

    Fourthly, everyone expects Apple to buy everything (Sony, Nintendo, Be, Sun, Palm, ...) and they generally don't.

    Fifthly, who cares? Twitter's already over. The "cool" people have moved on to hype other new stuff (remember Blogs? remember Podcasts?)

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @06:53PM (#27839311)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MrCrassic ( 994046 ) <<li.ame> <ta> <detacerped>> on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @07:04PM (#27839433) Journal
    I posed this very same question to a group of tech entrepreneurs in a list that I'm subscribed to. A lot of them see immense value in Twitter because of the speed in which things "click" on it. If you're "followed" enough, you can literally create one tag and have a massive following on the Internet playing along with it in a matter of minutes, largely because a lot of people use the service through their phones.

    It's also a very effective marketing tool, as Oprah and Ellen DeGeneres have shown. In addition, it gives people who are totally un-tech-savvy a super simple outlet to pushing their ideas, which a lot of marketing folk fit nicely in (no offense to the sales people that are savvy).

    A lot of people also find it a useful journalistic tool. The low-flying plane incident that happened in New York recently is a great example of Twitter's broadcasting power, since several thousand Twitter users wrote about it within minutes of it happening and almost certainly before the news outlets could get to it. The speed at which information spreads on there is fascinating, though the amount of crap that spreads follows the trend. It's kind of expected, though, when you mix well-informed people having fun with Twitter with those that lack even a slithering of character...

    Again, I use it mostly for fun, but it's effectiveness almost wholly depends on those that you're connected to. In a matter of days, I found out about lots of specials and niceties that I would have been left out on without Twitter. Not saying that it's the best source for that, but it's pretty good. Wouldn't surprise me if it was a one-hit wonder, though.
  • by onkelonkel ( 560274 ) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @07:05PM (#27839461)
    Point Cast!

    A little internet paleontology for you- Back in the days of IE4 "push" technology was the next big thing and PointCast was the big player in push. They turned down a $450 million purchase offer because they figured they could do better. The market for "push" tanked and they turned down ever lower offers and in the end I think they got about $7 mil.
  • by MCSEBear ( 907831 ) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @07:09PM (#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 xenocide2 ( 231786 ) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @08:57PM (#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.

  • by taxman_10m ( 41083 ) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @09:49PM (#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 Firehed ( 942385 ) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @10:31PM (#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.

  • From that page on apple's site about twitter clearly Apple thinks they have a similar dna.

    What could it be used for? Well here's an idea called "Screw the RIAA".

    In this monetization possibility (or fantasy you decide), Apple makes twitter groups for every rock band performance in the world, and anybody can twit on it about going there, the band can put special info and links to its site on it, you can basically start an indie craze from nothing.

    Now Twitter makes me gag and I would hate using it or being forced to read it. But, it might be neat if you opened it to a lot of people per channel and used it to focus interest, the way usenet groups used to, and you can maybe make anybody with an Apple iphone etc. become a potential uploader to some flash crowd twitter group.

    These band appearances and twitter threads lead people to the band's site for info, and to iTunes to download the band's stuff for money, and this is a realization of the model that everyone has talked about for ages about how to screw the RIAA and get bands to communicate and sell directly to their fans. Same could go for films, books, etc.

    Only thing is, I don't see any reason why you couldn't build the same thing (twitter lookalike, easy, and iTunes type sales portal, not so easy). I suppose having the hardware and iTunes associations already, and the mass and early to market edge, might be enough to make Apple take a chunk out of the RIAA's sales and give authors a higher income. That and the advertising for ipods, iphones and iTunes, would be neat and might be worth the cash.

  • by BrokenHalo ( 565198 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @01:16PM (#27847995)
    so was it really overhyped and overinflated at the time as such?

    Given that it's largely driven by vapour, it possibly was and is. I have no figures to back this up (anyone?) but I suspect a large part of Google's value is driven by IP more than by tangible assets.

Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.

Working...