I think everyone is ignoring the fact that he really wanted to work there. If you're in that boat then yes this makes sense.
But if like most people you're not exactly gaga over the company but value other factors like pay and lifestyle then the traditional approach could yield more dividends. Return on time invested after all is important.
I have. Gives me a bunch of bs I have no interest in. How about ask me/infer from who I follow, what I'm interested in? Google now does that and blends it in with more general stories; simple and useful. Not intrusive and useless like moments.
If it is an early stage company that has the ability to not just increase revenue/customer but also total number of customers.
Also the competition in the bidding process matters. There are a limited number of players who can/will swallow an acquisition this size. Public companies never get bought for these numbers. Why would Google bid that when a 30-40% premium would be enough for most shareholders to vote yes?
On twitter itself, I feel the quote, "clown car that fell into a goldmine" attributed to mark zuckerberg is pretty appropriate.
It would most likely not get past Google's board. And investors would crucify them for paying that kind of premium for a stalled social network (aka don't get the incremental benefits of growth via network effects). They would be left with 1) increase revenue/user or 2) cut costs.
Periscope doesn't fulfill the "toothbrush" principle, aka stuff that you use every day. That's how Google does M&A. Their corporate development people have talked about it publicly.
Also, the shares turnover every 26 days given that about 26MM shares trade every day. Hard to say that a majority of the shareholder base would not accept a 40% premium.
Honestly even the changes twitter has made have been poor. Moments should ask you, like Google Now, what you're interested in. What use is a random burst of stuff if you're interested only in big basketball stories? It should blend what you want with what's going on around you in an artful manner. Google even showed the way with this.
Even assuming everyone bought in at today's low cost base; who would agree to this? Would you voluntarily lose $15+/share for...for what exactly? Greater good?
As it happens, that's precisely the reason why public corporations exist: the greater good.
That this has been forgotten and replaced with unilateral and antisocial concerns like "increase shareholder value at all costs" is an accident along the way. There is no reason why that can't be corrected.
Public corporations exist for the good of the public and are basically funded by the public - even more so if they are largely owned by pension funds.
My point, that being said, was not that this is straightforward. It is clearly not an easy step from public corporation to charity. However, that is a slightly easier step than from VC owned private company to charity, because VCs are very clear about wanting one thing only: capital gains, and they are not equivalent to "the public".
