I think that's nothing more than a pipe dream. It seems that Twitter is bordering dysfunctional internally and is hemorrhaging money at the worst possible time (massive debts to support, slowing economy, less accessible loans). I think Twitter's current strategy is desperately trying to make money and stop the losses.
Many APIs do have price tiers but it depends upon the business model, if the API is the product, or the app is the product and the API drives traffic and use cases. For a super-app, arguably the app is the product & profit generator and an open, free API would support usage of that.
Also regulators in on some of Twitters core markets (EU and US) are not to fond of ginormous Techconglomerates at the moment and might have a few words to say about that.
In fact the EU recently passed laws to nip budding "market dominant companies" before they take out all of the competition and bundle lots of unrelated services.
The political climate soured with regards to Big Tech and that's happening across party lines.
The perplexing thing is that all these headwinds are fairly well known and for some time (even though probably internalized more by participants in this particular forum). So this raises the question whether there was any rationality attached to the infamous $44bln purchase. One could hypothesise that it was just a random, discretionary action, made possible by an insane system that has lost any sense of value, purpose or accountability.
In either case this story will definitely increase popcorn consumption.
I don't think it's that simple. Imagine if you had 'overpaid' for ownership of most US radio broadcasting in 1938. On paper it might look like a terrible investment, but depending on your goals and alliances it might be worth massively more than the book value.
Could be and billionaires have a tendency to fall very softly.
I'm still figuring out how the "no due diligence, no exit hatch - final offer" figures into this. Why no not do it like you usually approach a takeover of this scale.
He did try to wiggle out of it almost instantly and found himself locked into the contract by "himself".
To me this feels like he made a fairly emotional decision, used his influential network and personal assets to setup the deal but was afraid to "chicken out"/face reality when given the chance.
Bordering on dysfunctional internally? Do you have any evidence to support that? Real evidence, so that we aren’t thrashing in a sea of conjecture, speculation and politics. People confidently predicted that twitter would grind to a halt a month or two ago… the rumor gained momentum and everyone was saying it. And it turned out to be nonsense. If people actually required a little evidence before believing things instead of playing make-believe like you then it would save people from looking really stupid and wasting their time with vapid rumors.
Many APIs do have price tiers but it depends upon the business model, if the API is the product, or the app is the product and the API drives traffic and use cases. For a super-app, arguably the app is the product & profit generator and an open, free API would support usage of that.