It is so incomparable in scope I don't know why people bring it up.
Is there a reason to integrating ads into WhatsApp would require more than another 50 people? Twitter ads are certainly do not appear very complicated. The most complicated thing about Twitter is scale, which is why the comparison is made with WhatsApp.
> recommendations,
Does Twitter have recommendations? From what I understand, the front page was actively curated - that is, a human chose stories to put there. I guess you could count the god-awful default feed ordering as "recommendations", but there is nothing advanced about it.
> bots
If WhatsApp doesn't have bots, it's the only social media/chat app I've ever heard of that doesn't. What is needed for this other an an API?
> had to provide tooling for governments, regulators, content moderators etc.
I'm sure at least some of this exists for WhatsApp. Nevertheless, how many additional employees does this have take?
I am not sure why there is so pushback against the idea most companies are overstaffed. For the most part, yes, everyone has "work" to do. But most of the work is fundamentally unproductive. It's this way throughout the economy, but a few tech companies probably do represent extreme cases. I think the best argument for their case is that most of them are very profitable anyway (not Twitter, somehow), and they might as well throw money at thousands of people to do stuff in case one of them accidentally does something that ends up being wildly profitable. I am fairly neutral on the whole thing; I strongly dislike Elon, but I also think Twitter was horrifically mismanaged. While I doubt Twitter will come out better than it is, the idea that firing most of such a large organization would necessarily result in the immediate collapse of a mature product does not say much about the people that were fired.
I'm more sympathetic to the idea that it would get even worse over time, but I don't think there's anything necessary about this. You could focus on resolving longstanding issues while pausing most new work and probably come out perfectly fine.
You see a couple of ads mixed in your feed; behind that there's a big machine selling that space to advertisers and mixing it into the timeline of every user based on whatever profile Twitter has created for you. Then the advertisers want to know how their ads are doing, or they'll stop buying them…and you'll probably need to have salespeople to get them to put money into your ad system in the first place.
> I guess you could count the god-awful default feed ordering as "recommendations", but there is nothing advanced about it.
Just because you don't like the ordering doesn't mean it's not advanced.
> I am not sure why there is so pushback against the idea most companies are overstaffed.
Twitter could be overstaffed. In fact it probably was overstaffed. But it's not overstaffed in the tune of of "it should be 10 people working out of a garage".
>provide tooling for governments
What tooling do they provide for governments?
This right here is why you can discount most replies on HN right off the bat. The "I can make software X in a day" posts are 99% bullshit because the posters making them have idea what business reality look like. If their program gained any popularity they'd be in a panic the first time the FBI dumped a warrant in their lap and their full stack developer is now spending a week with the lawyer trying to figure out how to untangle their data while the customers that paid for ads are yelling the metrics API went down 2 days ago.
IG 13 employees at 30m users. Couldn't find # of servers.
FB had 10k servers in 2008 and 100m users, 850 employees.
I believe Doubleclick had ~500-1000 servers for ~10b daily impressions in mid-2000s.
Those numbers are all on circa 2010 hardware, so.. divide by a decade of performance doubling every 2 years (conservatively), or ~5x fewer servers in 2020.
The government takedown stuff, from personal experience, is tiny on the systems side; much more about moderators and expensive legal staffing.
These are very rough estimates, but I've heard 250k servers for Twitter.. that's much more on par with Goog/Amzn/Msft serving clouds at ~1m+ machines. That's a mystery to me.
so you mean that 50 people could run Twitter, if only they removed the bloat and focused on their core business?
> or had to provide tooling for governments, regulators,
nobody did back in 2014.
Since then WhatsApp has grown a lot, doubling its size to around a hundred employees.
What's their core business? Losing money on a platform where people can post racist comments?
Or do they have to earn money without getting sued for being used to spread CSAM and being a platform for harassment?
Because the first is very easy with 50 people. Elon can keep sinking money into it and never earn a dime (see Truth Social, they seem to be doing well!). The last is a lot more complicated and requires an ad platform, ad sales, content moderation, documentation writers, support agents, management, scrum masters, SREs, purchasing, et cetera.
IT people are really good at ignoring everything but the tech stack. Like tech is the only thing needed to run a profitable business. (It is... But not to run a 40B valued profitable business... And Twitter wasn't even profitable at all.)
They are entirely different technological challenges.
So twitter can afford to deliver those tweets with higher maximum latency than WhatsApp.
And it's scaling when you need to keep low latencies, that really kills you, at least in my experience.
Twitter’s latency stems from calculating what tweets should show on a given request. Even if you try to show tweets from 1 minute ago, it’s hard to cache that stuff using traditional systems because of the fan out. If an account with 50 million followers tweets, you need to update 50 million timelines. How do you do that quickly?
And you would have to define maximum latency, is it seconds, minutes, hours? because you can’t have the timelines be inconsistent for too long as that leads to some people getting news faster than others.
ok, so this must be the hardest problem in the World, given that
- WhatsApp had 55 employees at the time of acquisition
- Twitter had 7,500 full-time employees at the end of October
But still, you can't compare apples to oranges.
