> Does spotify need 20x more employees than Valve/STEAM?
The difference is the person you’re responding to doesn’t claim to know the answer to something it’s almost impossible for either of you to know the answer (unless you have inside knowledge or have done a deep dive on Spotify).
> How's twitter working with 80% less employees?
Extremely poorly. It’s hemorrhaging money and it’s hemorrhaging users. Competitors are arising where almost none existed for about a decade and a half.
The point of having employees in a major platform based company isn’t just to “work fine”, but to out compete massive trillion dollar companies while at the same time fending off tiny 2-3 person startups which may come with a completely new idea or approach out of nowhere. Twitter’s reduced workforce only allows it to exist but has made it extremely hard to actually defend from those forces.
And to the extent it is succeeding to retain any users it’s almost entirely because of the advantages built by the company when it had a much larger workforce.
The only caveat I will add is that a lot of tech companies over hired during the pandemic due to FOMO more than anything else, and we know this because most of their CEOs have said as much.
No it's not, it has hit multiple usage records this year.
> Competitors are arising where almost none existed for about a decade and a half.
Threads is a ghost town, Bluesky has pushed like 1 update this year, mastodon while it's found it's niche it will always be a niche because normal people don't understand or care what federation is.
Don't believe everything you read from people aggrieved by a service.
Was Twitter in any way profitable before Musk took over, or was it coasting on zero interest investor money on the premise that "one day" it will be profitable?
>Competitors are arising where almost none existed for about a decade and a half.
Competitors rise all the time, the question is which have the sticking power to beat Twitter.
The difference is the person you’re responding to doesn’t claim to know the answer to something it’s almost impossible for either of you to know the answer (unless you have inside knowledge or have done a deep dive on Spotify).
> How's twitter working with 80% less employees?
Extremely poorly. It’s hemorrhaging money and it’s hemorrhaging users. Competitors are arising where almost none existed for about a decade and a half.
The point of having employees in a major platform based company isn’t just to “work fine”, but to out compete massive trillion dollar companies while at the same time fending off tiny 2-3 person startups which may come with a completely new idea or approach out of nowhere. Twitter’s reduced workforce only allows it to exist but has made it extremely hard to actually defend from those forces.
And to the extent it is succeeding to retain any users it’s almost entirely because of the advantages built by the company when it had a much larger workforce.
The only caveat I will add is that a lot of tech companies over hired during the pandemic due to FOMO more than anything else, and we know this because most of their CEOs have said as much.