Or to put it in analogy form. You give me $500,000 to buy you a Ferrari and I give you a Toyota Corolla.
You complain that I haven't held up my end of the bargain and I point out that the Corolla is a perfectly fine car that can get you from point a to point b and even has some strengths when compared to the Ferrari, so why are you complaining?
That's the point Twitter is at right now. They took the money to be something other than what they are right now. If Twitter wants to be just Twitter, that's fine, but you'll need to cut their 20 Billion market cap down to somewhere around a 3-4 Billion market cap, I don't have a model with me right now.
having said that, Twitter has some good things going for it.
- Mobile Advertising numbers are up Year over year
- Data licensing revenue is up
- monthly active users are up
EDIT to the child comment, you are confusing revenue and earnings. There is a huge difference between the two:)
(Boy would I love to see the 2011 Powerpoint deck shown to the Twitter investors in Round 7 & and Round 8 that convinced them to sink the additional $400 million & $300 million. It seems like there must have been some wildly optimistic projections in that presentation.)
- +$1.0 billion from 8 rounds of funding pre-IPO 
- +$1.8 billion raised from IPO  (sold 13% of the company)
- +$2.8 billion total
- -$511 million loss in first post-IPO quarterly report
- +~$1 million from angel investors (including Andy Bechtolsheim's famous $100k check)
- + $25 million from Sequoia, KPCB
- + $1.9 billion raised from IPO (sold 8% of the company)
- +$66 million profit in first post-IPO quarterly results (and would have been +$200 million if they didn't pay to settle Yahoo patents)
- +$$$ millions in growing profits in subsequent years as we all know now
I'd also expect the sever and trafic cost to scale from a "minimal" of around $100k a year in proportion with revenue. That is, I don't see how that's a good target for investiment money.
"Twitter has over 4,100 employees in more than 35 offices"
As a second thought, that makes some sense. Regional offices do localization, sales (with support), and legal adaptation mostly. Any company that wants to sell on several countries need such stuff.
More than a hundred employees for each office looks oversized, but not extremely so.
The only question yet open is if Twitter needed all this infrastructure to become a viable business, of if they could open smaller and grow into that size organically. But well, even if Twitter didn't need it, it's reasonable to imagine that some business would need it.
I guess my question of what a company could spend 1 billion of investment on is answered.
(Also, not really, really evil. I subscribe to the 1848 _Manifesto_ part 1, not parts 2,3 and 4)
not saying something else is better, though. most things we came up with always end up evil due to the way humans pervert it, not due to the concept.
All it takes is a critical mass of users to migrate to a clone, (which I assume is very likely if the company were to fail).
edit: why the downvote? If you disagree, let's talk about it.
I just can't see this form going away. A public-by-default, one-to-many microblog service has proven to be valued by a substantial userbase.
I have to think that the "next Twitter" could disguise itself as a sufficiently fresh take in order to gain enough trust from enough users.
(I upvoted you, btw.)
Joking aside, I wish there were some meaningful numbers around how many people (as a percentage of active user base) use it that way (live events) vs just seeing what their friends and/or favorite celebrities have to say.
Not so valued that they could charge a subscription to it tho', there lies the rub.
Why everyone ignoring the financial facts?
I don't like or use Twitter/Vine/Medium. But those guys generate load of money even that it look like they don't...
> "In the third quarter, the company lost $132m, equivalent to 20 cents a share."
It's not nitpicking when correcting a meaningful mistake.
That's $569.2M in revenue, not profit.