Service Provider Cloud

Will Amazon Buy Twitter?

Amid all the predictions and pontificating around the New Year, investor Howard Lindzon had an intriguing thought: Amazon will buy Twitter.

It makes sense from a business standpoint, Lindzon notes:

I know Jeff Bezos is cheap but Twitter will not get much cheaper and he already owns the Washington Post. I believe there will be a bidding war. Netflix should reach for Twitter as well. Google and maybe Microsoft will be forced into the bidding, but Amazon should win. If Bezos buys separately with private equity he can just take Twitter private and kick off Donald Trump. I hope he takes the media war up a notch because leaving news to Facebook and Google is a shitshow.

This ties in with a prediction of my own: Forget everything you know about Twitter. Twitter isn't a social network; it's a hypercloud platform. It's poised to be the next hypercloud star. (See Twitter's the Next Hypercloud Star (No Joke).)

Twitter is a platform optimized for delivering content in real time, with minimal latency. The Twitter platform is now being used to deliver text messages of 140 characters or less, as well as video, both real-time and otherwise. But those are just a couple of the applications possible on the Twitter hypercloud. The emerging category of Internet of Things applications demands just the characteristics Twitter provides: IoT apps need to be low latency; they often deliver very little data (like, say, 140 characters or less); and Twitter was born to run on feature phones, suggesting it can be easily adapted to the low power-consumption requirements of many Internet of Things devices.

Want to know more about the cloud? Visit Light Reading Enterprise Cloud.

So why shouldn't the company that owns the leading hypercloud of today, Amazon Web Services Inc. , acquire an emerging hypercloud leader?

Especially if it gives Bezos an opportunity to stick it to Trump, who essentially called Bezos a tax cheat and said during the campaign that Amazon would have "problems... such problems" if Trump become president. In response, Bezos promised to save Trump a seat on the Blue Origin rocket Bezos is investing in -- but didn't say anything about bringing Trump back to Earth.

Twitter was the subject of widespread takeover rumors in the fall, with Google, Microsoft, Salesforce and Verizon named as possible suitors. The rumors didn't go anywhere. (See Twitter Soars on Takeover Rumors – Reports).

— Mitch Wagner, Follow me on TwitterVisit my LinkedIn profile, Editor, Light Reading Enterprise Cloud

Ariella 3/19/2017 | 11:13:33 AM
Re: Better not I don't know. There are too many troubling scenarios that spring to mind in answer to the question, "What can possibly go wrong?"
kq4ym 1/14/2017 | 10:54:25 AM
Re: Better not It would be very interesting to see how a Bezos control of Twitter would in practical terms affect political discourse. It seems to me that control of the Washington Post would be entirely different than control of Twitter. But it certainly would not be out of the realm of possibility that Amanzon would want that media as well.
mendyk 1/4/2017 | 3:50:25 PM
Re: Better not Maybe it's time to give it a rest.
chuckj 1/3/2017 | 9:25:57 PM
Better not Washington Post is an embarrasement under Bezos, from the Hillary is healthy as an ox story to appology over propornot fake news story pushing sources that worse than the news site they were saying are fake.  We cannot have Bezos control Twitter that would be disaster on free speech.  
brooks7 1/3/2017 | 3:59:55 PM
Re: Out of the box Dennis,

My only concern would be that the technology in distributing short messages is not unique.  They started with Stock Quotes.  Another more modern model is the dynamic insertion of ads on web pages like this one.

The other thing is that generally the flow of data in IOT is the other way (or the bulk of it), where you have sensors that provide data flowing into a central hub.  Not a hub that distributed lots of messages.

Joe Stanganelli 1/3/2017 | 3:42:49 PM
Re: Out of the box > Buying it to silence the unsilenceable would be flat out dumb, though.

And would pretty much guarantee a notable leg up to Twitter rival Gab -- which is otherwise poised to melt away into niche obscurity the way Reddit alternative Voat did once the dust settled after Ellen Pao started clamping down on putative hate speech.
Joe Stanganelli 1/3/2017 | 3:39:49 PM
Booting the Donald I'm pretty sure that kicking off a user for political opinions the owner dislikes runs a heavy risk of falling afoul of the FTC and state AG offices.

Not that that's strictly stopped Twitter before.
mendyk 1/3/2017 | 3:26:46 PM
Out of the box Interesting take, Mitch. Conventional view would hold that Twitter's main value is in its brand rather than in what it does. But if its approach can't be replicated, then the conventional view is off. It's been known to happen. Buying it to silence the unsilenceable would be flat out dumb, though.
Sign In