> Musk’s tweets (or Xs or whatever he calls them these days)
History may prove me wrong, but the rebranding of Twitter still seems like an own goal. The fact that no word has naturally emerged to mean "a post on X" is the best evidence of this; after all, the word "tweet" evolved organically
> Musk’s tweets (or Xs or whatever he calls them these days)
History may prove me wrong, but the rebranding of Twitter still seems like an own goal. The fact that no word has naturally emerged to mean "a post on X" is the best evidence of this; after all, the word "tweet" evolved organically
Perhaps. He certainly bought Twitter on a whim. He made his offer (including the meme number 420) after one of his Twitter followers suggested it. Then when it looked like the offer might actually get accepted, he tried to back out, but a court forced him to follow through anyway.
Rebranding it "X", by contrast, may have been a little more thought out. He had a stated strategy of turning Twitter into an "everything app" (like China's Weixin or AliPay), so he wanted it to have a name that didn't suggest mere chatter. "X" is about as generic yet memorable as a name can be.
The payment side of his app plan hasn't worked out so far, probably stymied by the Biden administration, which is an overlooked reason for Musk's recent hostility to the Democrat's regime.
> "His public-political persona has not matched the idea that he is supposedly a business-genius."
Yes, ironically Musk's success may have something to do with the fact that he is not really a good businessman. Going into the heavily-regulated, capital-intensive, commodity-competitioned automobile and rocket industries are pretty much the opposite of what any modern business school would advise you to do. Yet Musk made spectacular successes in both. Overpaying for Twitter, letting disgruntled employees alienate advertisers, and tweeting things that annoy electric car owners are things that would also be vetoed by a business consigliere if he had any, yet Musk has ridden the (probably unprofitable) Twitter acquisition to global influence and a seat in the White House. The whole story is so improbable that if it were in a novel the reader would dismiss it as too fictional. Yet Musk really did it. While also playing video games.
I read at the time of the buyout that he really wanted it for the deep space communication potential. That it was especially suited therefor and would not require construction of a new system from the ground up. This rang true to me at the time and still does. As for "X" not catching on, my bet is that he is good with that given the name he gave the little boy he carries around on his shoulders. Organic does not seem to be his motif.
My sense is that he bought Twitter as an insurance policy, as he was a natural target for cancel culture. It might not be profitable on its own but it’s allowed him to grow his wealth to $400B and now basically run the country.
> Musk’s tweets (or Xs or whatever he calls them these days)
History may prove me wrong, but the rebranding of Twitter still seems like an own goal. The fact that no word has naturally emerged to mean "a post on X" is the best evidence of this; after all, the word "tweet" evolved organically
A dumb decision.
What induced Elon to make the decision? Whim(sy)? His public-political persona has not matched the idea that he is supposedly a business-genius.
> "Whim(sy)?"
Perhaps. He certainly bought Twitter on a whim. He made his offer (including the meme number 420) after one of his Twitter followers suggested it. Then when it looked like the offer might actually get accepted, he tried to back out, but a court forced him to follow through anyway.
Rebranding it "X", by contrast, may have been a little more thought out. He had a stated strategy of turning Twitter into an "everything app" (like China's Weixin or AliPay), so he wanted it to have a name that didn't suggest mere chatter. "X" is about as generic yet memorable as a name can be.
The payment side of his app plan hasn't worked out so far, probably stymied by the Biden administration, which is an overlooked reason for Musk's recent hostility to the Democrat's regime.
> "His public-political persona has not matched the idea that he is supposedly a business-genius."
Yes, ironically Musk's success may have something to do with the fact that he is not really a good businessman. Going into the heavily-regulated, capital-intensive, commodity-competitioned automobile and rocket industries are pretty much the opposite of what any modern business school would advise you to do. Yet Musk made spectacular successes in both. Overpaying for Twitter, letting disgruntled employees alienate advertisers, and tweeting things that annoy electric car owners are things that would also be vetoed by a business consigliere if he had any, yet Musk has ridden the (probably unprofitable) Twitter acquisition to global influence and a seat in the White House. The whole story is so improbable that if it were in a novel the reader would dismiss it as too fictional. Yet Musk really did it. While also playing video games.
I read at the time of the buyout that he really wanted it for the deep space communication potential. That it was especially suited therefor and would not require construction of a new system from the ground up. This rang true to me at the time and still does. As for "X" not catching on, my bet is that he is good with that given the name he gave the little boy he carries around on his shoulders. Organic does not seem to be his motif.
My sense is that he bought Twitter as an insurance policy, as he was a natural target for cancel culture. It might not be profitable on its own but it’s allowed him to grow his wealth to $400B and now basically run the country.