<i>"Google CEO Eric Schmidt appears to believe that Twitter will coin money someday. Google should buy Twitter even if it thinks Twitter will never make money, merely as a way to get into the social-network business. But if Google thinks that Twitter will eventually bring home the bacon, then all the more reason to grab it."</i><p>The opposite is also true.<p>If Twitter will "switch on" revenue at some point in the near future perhaps it is better to wait and avoid paying at some insane pre-revenue valuation.
The core argument in that article is that Twitter somehow competes with Facebook in a 'social network space'. Twitter is a very different beast to Facebook, with different use cases and user profiles.<p>Facebook is a great 'social tool' that helps people stay connected with real 'meat-space' friends. Twitter is for following celebrities and geek friends.<p>Twitter is no magic bullet to compete with Facebook.
That businessinsider article has a nasty audio-visual ad that's set to autoplay. Here is the silent, inanimate prose:<p><a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/09/29/businessinsider-heres-why-google-needs-to-buy-twitter-immediately-2010-9.DTL&type=printable" rel="nofollow">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/09/29/...</a>
When I read that headline I was instantly reminded of YouTube. Google should buy Twitter because it's got a massive user base that they will find impossible to monetize as well? Doesn't sound like a good deal to me.