×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Rumored To Want To Buy Twitter

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the and-a-pony dept.

Businesses 325

OSXGlitch writes "A post on TechCrunch this morning extends the rumor that Apple wants to buy Twitter with part of their massive cash reserve (estimated at nearly $29B). The Twitterverse is alive with speculation that the price being discussed is $700 million. This goes against reports that Twitter's founders aren't interested in selling, and that they estimate the value of the company at around $250 million. Two questions: How do we all feel about the possibility of Apple owning Twitter? And, can Twitter decline an offer that is nearly three times their estimated worth?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

325 comments

I will quit twitter (5, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838371)

and nothing of value will be lost.

Re:I will quit twitter (4, Insightful)

Stele (9443) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838627)

I've never used twitter...

...and nothing of value will be lost.

Re:I will quit twitter (0, Troll)

MeatBag PussRocket (1475317) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838633)

How do we all feel about the possibility of Apple owning Twitter?

we feel like NOT being whipped into a mob frenzy.

"can Twitter decline an offer that is nearly three times their estimated worth?"

i could offer you $50 to sell me your genitals, and frankly thats probably 3 times their value, but i highly doubt you'd sell them to me for $50... OTOH, if you dont want em anymore...

any privately held company is under no compulsion to sell anything regardless of incentive.

Re:I will quit twitter (5, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838835)

If anything, this is just an attempt to link Twitter to a company that has a very large wad of cash (which isn't that common right now), as well as one that mass name recognition (namely Apple), in order to increase Twitter's apparent value, either for more funding or to sell part/all of the company to somebody else.

Nobody at Apple is stupid enough to buy an SMS service.

If there was somebody this dumb at Apple, they would have already spent way to much for an instant messaging service (I bet you could buy AOL's IM service at fire-sale prices if you took the rest of AOL with it from TimeWarner).

Re:I will quit twitter (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27838867)

i could offer you $50 to sell me your genitals

and nothing of value will be lost.

Re:I will quit twitter (5, Insightful)

Mean Variance (913229) | more than 4 years ago | (#27839073)

any privately held company is under no compulsion to sell anything regardless of incentive.

Yeah. Craigslist immediately comes to mind.

Re:I will quit twitter (5, Funny)

Animaether (411575) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838689)

your post is true both ways ;)

<QuantumG> I will quit twitter
<Twitter> and nothing of value will be lost

Re:I will quit twitter (0, Troll)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838837)

It would be more constructive to stay around and just go on a hatin' rampage about every little way that Apple douches is up and charges for services. If everyone just leaves it then all the sensible people are gone and only the Apple fans are left.

The Guardian says this is hot air (5, Interesting)

levell (538346) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838387)

This Guardian article [guardian.co.uk] argues that the story is complete hot air, the two sources (Tech Crunch and ValleyWag) are both unconvinced themselves and the Twitter execs seem to be in the wrong part of the US to be locked into negotiations with Apple.

Leaving aside whether it is true or not, it seems a very strange fit. Apple doesn't seem to gain very much in its core business from the acquisition

Re:The Guardian says this is hot air (5, Insightful)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838561)

Twitter doesn't fit in with Apple's core business model, and Apple doesn't seem to like wasting money and time on stuff that doesn't make them lots of money in return. What happened to the good ol days of Apple speculative rumors, when the rumors were at least plausible?

Re:The Guardian says this is hot air (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838969)

I think Apple and Twitter are a perfect fit.

Re:The Guardian says this is hot air (1)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 4 years ago | (#27839097)

Impart from both being pop culture, what else do they have in common? What can twitter provide Apple that they care about?

Re:The Guardian says this is hot air (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 4 years ago | (#27839117)

Apple could use the Twats (tm) on Twitter to endlessly promote this weeks exciting new range of mp3 player and transparent PC. It's a match made in heaven!

Re:The Guardian says this is hot air (5, Funny)

Earthquake Retrofit (1372207) | more than 4 years ago | (#27839147)

What happened to the good ol days of Apple speculative rumors, when the rumors were at least plausible?

kdawson?

Re:The Guardian says this is hot air (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27838839)

This Guardian article [guardian.co.uk] argues that the
story is complete hot air, the two sources (Tech Crunch and ValleyWag) are both unconvinced themselves and the Twitter execs seem to be in the wrong
part of the US to be locked into negotiations with Apple.

Leaving aside whether it is true or not, it seems a very strange fit. Apple doesn't seem to gain very much in its core business from the
acquisition

It makes more sense when you see kdawson posted it.

Re:The Guardian says this is hot air (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838841)

If a rubbish tabloid site like ValleyWag says it's bunk, then it's not even a shadow of a story.

One thing is for certain... (2, Funny)

randombilly (1082811) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838391)

It would, at the very least, make for a much better Tweet App on my iPhone....

Re:One thing is for certain... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27838605)

You need a life. Twitter is the most useless waste of time and human resource. It is the domain of those with no personal life because they want everyone else to know when they take a toilet break.

Re:One thing is for certain... (1)

randombilly (1082811) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838685)

It's strange that you tell your friends when you're going #2.. I, for one, use it to set up where to be with my friends.. When to be at kickball.. And ask for favors, without having to text 20 people individually. It's actually quite useful, when it's used in a way that is useful.

Re:One thing is for certain... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27838871)

I use outlook. I setup a server and all my friends log in and put up times they are available and outlook manages all our time!

Re:One thing is for certain... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27839107)

Yeah, that's much easier! And Outlook is an app that everyone has anyway.

Re:One thing is for certain... (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838625)

It would, at the very least, make for a much better Tweet App on my iPhone....

Unless you believe that the only good tweet app is a dead tweet app.

Why would they want to buy the latest entry in the spamiverse?

The Unofficial Dungeons & Dragons Rules Cyclop (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27838399)

What follows are rule corrections, clarifications, and suggested changes for the Rules Cyclopedia published in 1991 by TSR. For those unaware, this is a hard cover volume listing (almost) all of the D&D rules from the Basic, Expert, Companion, and Master boxed sets of the early 1980s. The only box set not included is the Immortal Rules (replaced by the Wrath of the Immortals box set). This line of products should not be confused with Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, or simply Dungeons & Dragons as currently published by Wizards of the Coast.

The Corrections

For these rule corrections I've used the following sources:

  '81 Basic/Expert binder rules
  '83 Basic/Expert/Companion/Immortal boxed sets
  '94 Classic D&D boxed set

The Errata Begins:

Page 12:

There's space at the bottom of this page, which bears the column about hit points, where we can place the missing natural healing rule:

Each full day of complete rest (no fighting or traveling!) will restore 1d3 hit points. If those resting are interrupted during that day in any way, then no healing will take place.

Or, from the 1994 Edition: Instead restore 1d4 hit points.

There's also a mistake on this page, in the third column under "Maximum Levels and Experience Points." Score a line through "and elves" that appears in the first paragraph. Elves can only attain a level of 10.

Page 14:

Cleric titles: All level titles were omitted in the Cyclopedia. However, in the cases of thieves and clerics, you may find them still to be of value. Cleric table is below. Thieves' table is on page 2.

Turning Undead: Notice the "But don't forget, if the monster is turned, it hasn't been destroyed, it may decide to return soon..." Now that's nice and vague. From the Basic rule book: "They will stay away 1d10 rounds." To determine whether the monsters return when the turning wears off, "make a Reaction roll. If the result of the roll
is 8 or more, the undead return."

Page 18:

For Paladins, the last line in the 4th requirement should read: "Therefore, a 16th or 17th level paladin can turn undead with the same ability of a 5th level cleric." Paladins start at 9th level in D&D. The Avengers column on the opposite side of the page has the correct values if you want to compare them.

Level Title
1 Acolyte
2 Adept
3 Priest
4 Vicar
5 Curate
6 Elder
7 Bishop
8 Lama
9 Patriarch

Page 19:

There are several errors in the Magic User Experience Table in regard to spell allotments. Mages don't receive 6th level spells until level 12, so cross out the last "1" in the level 11 row. At levels 13 and 14, mages should have five of the first level spells (if the progression from the Expert boxed set is used).

Page 20:

Towers: Enoch Perserico points out a rule variance for when magic users can build their towers/strongholds. From the Expert rules (both 1981 and 1983), mages can do so when they reach 11th level. The rules here read "Name level" or 9th level. Enoch speculates this may be a correction rather than an error, to bring the requirement for stronghold creation in line with the other human classes.

Magi: Item one for the magi suggests that they can assist land-owning magic users with spell/item research "as described in Chapter 3." That topic is actually covered in Chapter 16, starting on page 250. However, nowhere in Chapter 3, 13 or 16 does it mention how a magus decreases time or increases chance of success. From the Companion rules: Any item or spell research can be completed in half the normal time and with double the chance of success. Also, the original item number two was removed from the list. It stated that the Magus, like the thief, has a chance (determined by the DM) of finding treasure maps, and hearing rare rumors of powerful magic items.

Page 20:

Experience levels: Some players may have noticed that the XP requirements for levels 4 and 5 are wrong. Well, that depends on whether you used to use the '81 edition and prior or the '83 boxed set series. If you used the latter, then level 4 is at 5,000 and level 5 is at 10,000.

Page 24:

Languages: This applies to page 25 as well. The rules state the following point more clearly in other books. Dwarves and elves can speak the additional languages listed, just like the rules state. However, they can't read or write them. To do so they must expend their additional intelligence slots or general skills to pick those languages (as detailed in the '94 boxed set).

Page 25:

The special abilities "Detection" description of elves does not mention the exact rule (as the dwarf area did on the previous page). Under the detection section in the third column note that it's a 1d6 roll, rolling a 1 or 2 for success.

Page 26:

Elves: Enoch Peserico notes a discrepancy here for the Experience Table for their spells. He's noticed the table is not the same as in the 1983 Expert boxed set; on that table, elves did not achieve 5th level spells until level 10. Actually, this table is from the 1981 Expert binder rules. However, Enoch cites the 1983 table being used in GAZ 5 "The Elves of Alfheim" and Gaz 13 "The Shadow Elves". This, as well as other revisions in the 1983 edition for magic users/clerics, suggests this 1981 table is incorrectly used. To adjust the table in the Cyclopedia, use this table.

Halflings: In the combat bonuses table, the plus one to individual initiative also applies to the group if they are comprised only of halflings.

Page 32:

In the third column, at the end of the second paragraph place an asterisk, then scribble this missing rule somewhere: "If the caster loses initiative and takes damage or fails a saving through, then the spell is interrupted and lost." In the "Reversible Spells" section, note that the caster must be at least fourth level to reverse spells.

Page 33:

Under the section "Learning New Spells", you may wish to note: "Clerics receive new spells directly from the power they serve, so they will be able to learn any spell on the clerical spell list once they gain enough experience to cast spells of that level. The DM may, however, have their immortal restrict certain spells."

Page 35:

Resist Spells: For the spells Resist Cold and Resist Fire, I suggest noting that the minus one point per hit die be applied after the saving throw. Mathematically this is an important decision (it's better for the players this way). Although it is implied by their use of "Furthermore", it's not actually stated when to apply it.

Page 37:

Create Food Spell: Originally, clerics/magic-users didn't have as many levels or spells, so they acquired higher level spells earlier and were able to cast a greater number per day. The authors forgot, however, to update a few of the spell descriptions. So, the second sentence should now read: "For every level of the cleric above 10th, the spell..."

Page 38:

Raise Dead: Again, this is an old rule not revised. The second paragraph should read: "A 10th level cleric can raise a body that has been dead for up to four days. For each level of the cleric above 10th add four days to this time. Thus, a 12th level cleric can raise bodies that have been dead for up to twelve days."

Truesight: This error originates with the companion set. The duration should read either: "1 turn + 1 turn per level of the caster" or "1 round + 1 round per level for the caster." You can choose which you like better.

Page 47:

Phantasmal Force: You may want to consider that this spell, in relation to its description and other spells must be an immobile 20' cube. For example, you can create a flying monster, but it can't move outside the original 20' cube. Defining whether this is true or not will avoid arguments later.

Page 49:

Confusion: Something to consider before the magic-user casts this spell, is that the effect slot states 2d8 creatures. But the description suggests it affects all creatures within the radius.

Page 50:

Ice Storm/Wall of Ice: This spell, originally having only one effect, has two. This first line of the description states this, but then it states there are three effects. The effect "Icy blast" does not exist, and never did. So, the first line should read, "This spell may be cast in either of two ways: either as an ice storm, or wall of ice."

Polymorph spells: The D&D rules are never actually clear as to whether such spells, or related potions, change just the body or include the possessions. You may want to make a ruling on this before a player argues differently.

Page 51:

Animate Dead: Of little importance here, but every time they use "Cleric" they obviously mean "Magic User." (The same is actually true of Hold Person on page 48 as well.)

Cloudkill: As noted in "Explosive Cloud", this spell creates a greenish gas cloud. Further, you may wish to consider whether the cloud is opaque or translucent.

Dissolve: The spell's range, as first noted in its description, is 120'. The second value mentioned later in its description, 240', is incorrect.

Page 62:

Money: Okay, here the authors were trying to confuse you as much as possible. Scribble
this down and you'll never get confused!

Weapons table; missing
weapons: Under the
Weapons Special Effects
table, note that page 80 has
the full tables -- you'll need them for reference during the game play.

Coin US
Currency
Conversion
Factor
Platinum 5 dollars 5
Gold 1 dollar 1
Electrum 50 cents 2
Silver 1 dime 10
Copper 1 penny 100
Item Damage Range Cost Enc. Notes
Morning Star 1d6 + 1 - 5 30 M
Flail 1d6 - 5 40 c, M

Page 67:

In the editions in the early '80s and the '94 edition, magical armor only weighed half the encumbrance of its normal counterpart, but this rule was omitted from the Cyclopedia. In the Armor Table, create a "Magic enc." column. Here are the values that appeared in the Companion boxed set:

Another point, if you consider "Leather" to be "Hardened Leather" at AC 7, you can have "Padded Leather" at AC 8 (cost 15 GP). "Padded Fur" would also occupy AC 8 (in cold weather campaigns) for 10 GP.

Page 68:

The last sentence in the fourth paragraph of the third column is wrong. The griffin's MAXIMUM is 7000, its half is 3500. You can confirm this on Page 181. Score out 7000 and 14000 and replace it with the correct values. But take note that the prior logic the author was working through is no longer valid with these new values.

Page 69:

For the "Adventuring Gear" table, here's a missing item: Spell Book: 200 cn (from page 43, last paragraph)

Page 70, 71:

The vessel capacities listed in the descriptions for the river boat and galleys are all inconsistent with the table. According to the original Expert booklet, all the inconsistent values in the table are wrong. The Expert boxed set also bears the same errors.

The price listed for a Troop Transport (30,000 gp), is actually the price for the conversion of a sailing ship into a troop transport. Technically, the price should be 27,000 gp (which is closer to 1/3 of a large ship's price). However, to buy a Troop Transport off the shelf, so to speak, it costs 40,000 gp (from the Expert sets). The difference here is time: can the characters wait around to have their ship upgraded, or instead shop around for an available Troop Transport vessel.

Page 72:

Jimmy Kerl has spotted an error under the "Troop Transport" section in the first column. The additional cost to convert a sailing ship into a troop transport is actually 1/3 of the ship's listed cost, not 1/2. The cost is correctly listed on the chart's footnotes on page 71.

Page 74:

Note that treasure encumbrance is handled in chapter 16, but if you want to use the simpler original '81 Expert edition rules you can write them down at the bottom of this page. Also included are missing values for other miscellaneous items:

Page 75:

The weapon mastery system COMPLETELY unbalances the game! When your players have plus 9 or more to hit, you know something is wrong! I HIGHLY suggest using the system with one change: don't let any player get weapon mastery above "skilled." With this restriction the rules do work very well. You can then move some of the higher level options to apply to the skilled level.

Page 80:

Related to the page 75 note, I suggest removing the "Deflect" ability under the "Special Effects Descriptions." This makes it VERY, VERY hard to hit the player (you never will with high characters). Since they'll argue, point out the older "Parry" option on page 104.

Page 85:

Assuming you don't read the book straight cover to cover, you might miss a few rules under the "Riding Skill" section. It mentions restrictions if you DON'T have the skill.

Page 89:

Under the section "Long-Distance Travel and Rest" the missing forced march rule of the Expert boxed set (pg. 21) can be re-added. The rule is essentially: "A forced march can be undertaken to increase the party's movement rate by 50%, but the whole day after the Armor Magic Enc.
Leather 100
Scale Mail 125
Chain Mail 150
Banded Mail 175
Plate Mail 200
Item CN
Gem 1
Jewelry 10 (if not worn)
Potion 10
Rod 20
Scroll 1
Staff 40
Wand 10

Page 99:

In the third column in the paragraph starting with "The pursuers decide to give up the chase." there are some missing conditions. Apply the character's flee adjustments (missing from page 103, so you'll need to note those in the errata) as before, and then add a further +2 if the number of monsters is greater than the number of characters. If the adjusted result is 9 or greater than the monsters continue to pursue. Monsters will give up pursuit after 1-2 hours if the party is not found, and will rarely continue searching longer than a day (8 hours) unless some valuable item was stolen by the characters. (This is the flee reaction role, *not* a morale check.) On the next page, but related to evasion, is "Regain Bearings." Just remember you can, and should, give the characters general descriptions as they run away (as noted in the original rule books). Yes, they're running fast and can't map, but they can still see.

Page 102:

Okay, the first paragraph states that: "During a round, characters can do one thing..." and "A character cannot do two things in a single round, such as run 20 feet and then attack." Then in the next paragraph, "To reflect this limited movement, a character can move up to 5 feet while he is fighting." So, if you move MORE than that you can not attack. Okay? Good. Now let's look at page 103....

Page 103:

Look over at the third column section "Movement", under the sub heading "Encounter Speed." Put a line through the last sentence that reads "...and still make his attack this round." That rule is wrong, as we have just seen on page 102! Confusing? Simply, you can't move and attack at the same time unless you're within 5 feet of your opponent (you can only perform one action in a round).

At the Start of an Evasion: Related to morale is the monster reaction role towards fleeing characters. To decide if monsters will pursue, role 2d6 and adjust as follows: -2 if any monsters have been slain, +2 if no monsters have been hit, +3 if the monsters are hunting the characters; no adjustments if any monster has been hit but not slain. If the adjusted result is 9 or greater, the monsters will pursue. See the correction for page 99 for further notes on this missing flight rule.

Page 104:

Fighting Withdrawal: I don't know why, but it lists the character's movement rate at 5' per round. Now, that makes it VERY hard to do this maneuver! This rule, in ALL the other rule books, is 1/2 your movement rate. That differentiates it from "Retreat", which is a movement greater than 1/2.

Smash: I suggest that when the "Smash" maneuver is performed the players are not allowed to use their weapon mastery (since this is brute force instead of skill). This will make the -5 penalty something for players to be concerned about (otherwise this will become their standard attack).

Page 108:

For "Attack Roll Modifiers" in the first column, may I suggest that you note somewhere that if the characters are fighting in the dark or their adversary is invisible, then they are not permitted their weapon defense bonus from the chapter 5 optional weapon mastery rules. Just a logical rule modification.

Jimmy Kerl has noticed that the penalty for hitting a halfling in the table is incorrect; it should be -2. You may also wish to note here that page 150 (Special Conditions) lists attack modifiers for blindness and prone characters. (Note: Blindness is listed as -6 on page 150; however, -4 should be used if a mage is using detect invisibility to guide characters in attacking, as outlined in the older rules.) Here are a few more adjustments for the Missile Checklist: Crouching -1, and Moving Quickly -1.

For the cover adjustments section, a defender is considered to have at most 3/4 cover if he or she is using a missile weapon to attack. Surprise 1d4 x 10 yards

Page 110:

For the "Two Weapons Combat" rule, may I suggest that characters who wield two weapons can only attack 1 attacker until they get their fighter combat options. I also suggest that the second weapon (the offhand one), be a short sword or smaller. This will keep the game balanced.

Page 111:

I don't know WHAT they were thinking, but here's a correction. Look at the optional "Striking Procedure Checklist", specifically section 3. The last part of the line should read, "...base damage of 1 plus any bonuses from a high strength." Both the Companion and Cyclopedia rules actually state a base damage of 0. However, if that's true, then people with an average strength can not fight at all (they never do damage!). Optionally, you could state, that only people with superior strength can use the striking rules; but the rules don't actually state that. You decide which you prefer.

Look over on the third column, under "Striking and Two Weapons Combat." At the end of the first paragraph in this section add this, "... and the character must be at least skilled at boxing (next page) to do this." This will keep the rules balanced.

Page 113:

Under "Wrestling Effects" in its last paragraph, it states that the pinning character can inflict 1-6 damage plus strength on his opponents. However, the "Wrestling Combat Mastery Table" states a base damage of 1, and then increases in regard to the various skill levels. This is a rule conflict originating with the Companion and Master boxed sets. I would suggest that the 1-6 be used if you don't use the optional Weapon Mastery rules (it was written before them anyway). If you do use those rules, follow the table as it's laid out.

Page 115:

An error in the "Ram Attacks Table" was spotted by Jimmy Kerl. The damage for a small galley ramming a ship is correct at 50-80. However, the die calculation for this should be "1d4+4x10".

Page 140:

The Dominion rules here are a cut-and-paste job of the Companion and Master rules. One of the clarifications in the Master rules was to place a limit that each family could only work one resource (third column under "Limit Family Skills" here) and also create a minimum resource usage of 20%. These changes are only relevant because of the "Example" section in the middle of the second column. This was lifted directly from the Companion rules which are now flawed. From the example, the character has 200 peasant families working a hex, with 1 mineral and 1 animal resource (worth 3 and 2 gold pieces respectively). The example calculates that at 1,000 gp of Resource income. That would be 200 x (1x3 + 1x2). However, since the Master revision added in the restrictions, noted above, that number is invalid. The highest income level would be (40 x (1x2)) + (160 x (1x3)) resulting in 560 gp of Resource income. Or, risking rebellion, everyone can mine for 600 gps.

Page 145:

Under the section "Climbing" add, "A character receives 1 point of damage for falls under 10'." The rule comes from the thief section in chapter two. But how fast does a person climb? For ease, I suggest a person climbs at equal their normal rate in easy conditions. In adverse conditions give non-thief characters a penalty of 1/2. If you want more complex rules, I suggest referring to AD&D.

In the second column, the section titled "Damage to Magical Items" should read "Damage to Magical and Normal Items".

Page 150:

The following weapon mastery notes should be added for each of the respective sections:
Blindness: Weapon mastery skills are completely negated
Deafness: Weapon mastery attack bonus is negated, but damage remains the same.
Invisibility: Weapon mastery is completely negated.
Stunning, sections 1 and 4: Weapon mastery is negated.
Starvation table: At the bottom of the page, the "Movement Rates" column of the chart should read "x 1/4" for the 24% - 49% line.

Page 154:

Poison: Omitted from the Companion set (Book 2 pg. 22), summarised:
1. Monster poison, emanating from sacs or glands, is only poisonous while in the creature; when exposed to air it becomes useless in 1-10 rounds.
2. An intact poison sac (rare after a fight) lasts for 1-10 rounds per hit die of the monster.
3. As per the poison spell, the use of poison is considered an evil act.

Charm by monsters: The description here has been condensed by telling the reader it works just like the Charm Person spell. That is, however, incorrect. From the Basic set or the Classic 1994 set, the charm ability of monsters has the expected results that the character can not attack the monster and must follows its simple commands. What is missing here is that characters also find themselves confused and are unable to make decisions. This extends to the inability to cast spells or use magic items which require concentration. We might also consider at this point whether these rules on confusion should also then apply to charm spells and subsequent casting attempts by a victim. Unfortunately, the rules do not cover this idea, although there is an allusion to this in the Basic monster section. Yet it is never stated as such, including in the spell sections in both Players/DM Basic books and the Classic book. If we reference AD&D (2nd edition, DM page 90, Combat), there are rules applying to miscasting due to the befuddled charm state. Whether this applies to D&D, I leave up the reader. Although, strictly from the rules, charm is a "best friends" spell and monster charm powers are related better to the ability to mesmerize or enthrall.

Page 163:

Carrion Crawler: Cross out the words "except when" from the second line of the second paragraph. Someone rewrote the entry and left a few extra words in there.

Centipede, Giant: You may want to consider a penalty to allow combat. Since the characters can move, but not attack, when paralyzed your players will argue this point, especially if their characters are adventuring alone. Try a penalty of -4 without weapon mastery bonuses.

Page 182:

Haunt: In the "Save As" row it states "See below." That, in itself, is okay. The problem is that although it states the special rules, it never actually states what they save as (this dates back to the original Companion set). Consulting the D&D Creature Catalogue under "Banshee, Lesser", I think it's safe to say that the three Haunts save as fighters of equivalent level. That's F13, F14, and F12 respectively.

Haunt, Aging: Obviously not play tested all that much. The demi-human classes lose constitution after a given set of years, which pushes them towards middle age. However, even still the rate they age should be slower, to reflect their extended life spans. I suggest that elves lose one point of constitution every 40 years and dwarves every 20. Based on the age maximums and averages from chapter 13, this will result in equal aging with their human counterparts in respect to their max ages.

Page 185:

Hellhound: As far as I can tell they've never had a range stated for their breath weapon. You may want to interpret this as meaning they can only use their breath weapon against adjacent targets. Or, taken from AD&D, they have a range of 30'. However, AD&D Hellhounds are very weak and pathetic monsters (compared to D&D). So the 30' range on a D&D Hellhound may make it too powerful for lower level characters to handle.

Page 192:

Mek: The Mek's damage is listed as an impressive 1d6x10(x2). Wow - it scared the hell out of my players. In supplements such as M2: Vengeance of Alphaks, however, the damage is listed as 6d10x2. That's more in line with D&D conventions and makes it an
ordinary monster.

Page 195:

Mystic: The leader should save as Mystic 7 and all his thief abilities are wrong; refer to the thief at level 7. (There was confusion here whether the leader was level 6 or 7). Also remember the level 4s have hands that act as silver weapons and save as mystics of fourth level. Note, it says here that, "They may use potions or other magic items for certain situations." That's in the third paragraph, which is very interesting considering it doesn't state that at all in chapter 3. I assume its carrying the thought of the previous sentence about magic protection, but it's an interesting statement to consider anyway.

Page 200:

Rat, Giant: For some reason the Giant Rat's treasure type has been changed to "L". Originally it was "C"; which you may prefer if you perceive giant rats as pack rats.

Page 212:

Wight: These creatures do 1d4 damage when they attack (taken from AD&D).

Page 236:

Wand of Polymorphing: As the spell, the range is 60'.

Wands: It should be noted that none of the detection wands, such as Enemy Detection or Metal Detection, mention anything about the duration of a charge. Nor can I find any such rule in any other source. I suggest noting that the charges last only for 1 round, as these are detection wands, not locating wands; the wands show the player where something is, but not giving them the ability to go hunting for things.

Page 238:

Telekinesis ring: The speed for the ring is 20' per round (from page 52)

Protection rings: Magic is not cumulative with other rings (Protection +1 and Protection +5 is *not* +6; it is +5).

Page 239:

Bag of holding: What they should have said is that you should calculate the normal cn for the sacks contents, and note this down. Then multiply it by 0.06 to determine its actual weight. Easy to notice, but if you write it down here it'll save you time later.

Displacer cloak: From AD&D, the first attack always misses. That assumes, of course, that the attacker doesn't know the person is wearing the cloak.

Page 242:

Armor and Shields: As mentioned by my notes for page 67, the magic armor rules (half encumbrance) can be found in the '83 and '94 editions. Or you can use the Companion set magic encumbrance values I listed earlier.

Page 245:

A line needs to be crossed out on this page. Look at the second last column under "Sword Intelligence..." on the third column. The sentence in parentheses should be scored out; it starts with "The read magic ability is discussed below..." Well, this line doesn't appear in the older additions. Why? Well, because it's wrong. Someone has confused "read magic" with "detect magic". Assume that read magic has the properties stated at the beginning of "Primary Powers" - that it may be used once per round and as often as desired.

It might also be worth mentioning here the omission of the section entitled "Special Swords" that appeared in the '83 Expert rules. That section is, more or less, similar to the new section on "Weapon Bonus vs. Opponent" that's on page 247. However, here are rules you may find useful.

If both the intelligence and ego scores of a sword are 12, then the sword will have the following additional power:
  A lawful sword will paralyze a chaotic opponent struck unless the victim makes a Saving Throw vs. Spells.
  A neutral sword adds +1 to all of the user's Saving Throws.
  A chaotic sword will cause a lawful opponent struck to make a Saving Throw vs. Turn to Stone or be turned to stone.

Page 255:

Spell research: According to this rule book, and all previous, both clerics and druids can create new spells in addition to magic users. This, however, isn't logical. Recall, clerics obtain their spells from their immortals by praying. What the rules mean at present is that clerics research spells and then teach them to their immortals, which is just twisted. If your campaign treats clerical spell like mage spells, then use the rules as listed. Otherwise cross out "cleric and druid" from this section.

Page 266:

The "Ability Scores and Saving Throws" optional rules will unbalance the game, don't use them. I highly suggest the use of the "Keeping Characters Alive" rules exactly as they appear. Drop them when the characters reach "name" level if you wish.

Page 267:

There seems to be an editing error for the mystic variant experience guidelines. Look at the "Special Abilities That Do Improve" portion and you'll see that "saving throws will continue to improve". However, in the next paragraph under "Saving Throws" the rules state the reverse. The editor(s) incorrectly copied the text from the previous character class sections. In which case, this section should state that the mystic should use the fighter saving throws after passing the sixteenth level.

Page 293:

Look at the bottom of the chart under "Skills Proficiencies." The D&D and AD&D lines are mixed up. Add an "A" to the first line, and scratch out the "A" in front of the second area.

Tournament/Jousting Rules:

In the earlier versions of the errata I mentioned that the Tournament rules had been omitted from the Cyclopedia. I contacted TSR and was informed by Michael Huebbe (Consumer Inquiries Manager) that they had omitted these rules intentionally because of space requirements. At that time, Michael mentioned that photocopies of these missing rules could be mailed out if required. Regardless, these joust rules from the Companion set are well worth having. [My request to include them in this erratum was denied by TSR.]

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27838403)

I hope that Apple has more sense than buying this hugely overrated and overhyped Twitter thingie.

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838571)

Twitter is hugely popular and has no earthly idea how to capitalize on that popularity without killing itself. It's like every other Web fad, before long it's going to fade away and be replaced by something at least as inane as it is.

The only hope for the Twitter founders is to sell to someone with deep pockets and few brains as quickly as possible. I don't know why Apple would want it, but maybe some old media company with more money than brains would.

Re:Why? (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838719)

Remember when it was rumoured that Apple would buy Nintendo simply because of how the Wii (back then, if I remember it was still known as the Revolution) looked so much like an Apple-designed product?

Yeah, I don't think Apple would be so stupid as to waste money on something so pointless as Twitter.

Don't care. (4, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838407)

Twitter could be owned by the legion of doom and it still wouldn't make it interesting or remotely useful.

Value based on what, exactly? (4, Insightful)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838411)

And, can Twitter decline an offer that is nearly three times their estimated worth?"

And how exactly was that value derived? Value is based on the present value of future earnings, and AFAIK, twitter has none. Any number in the hundreds of millions of dollars should be seriously looked at. What I don't understand is what Apple would do with Twitter.

Re:Value based on what, exactly? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27838479)

Datamining, cuntbucket.

Re:Value based on what, exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27838803)

Wow, that concise 2 word post had me literally laughing. awesome post!

Re:Value based on what, exactly? (2, Interesting)

Dripdry (1062282) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838497)

This seems a little like Google acquiring Facebook. What value do either of things generate? While the article may not be true, could we please get away from more DotBomb 2.0 mentality? Maybe Apple wants to spread the rumor to drive up their stock price. See the following, as always re: Apple and Rumors: http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/ [misterbg.org]

Re:Value based on what, exactly? (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#27839013)

Maybe Apple wants to spread the rumor to drive up their stock price.

Why do you think a rumor that Apple might buy Twitter would raise it's stock price?

I figured out step #3 (1)

Propaganda13 (312548) | more than 4 years ago | (#27839205)

1. Create something slightly different than previous attempts.
2. Create a buzz and make it popular
3. Sell out while the perceived value is high
4. Profit!

Let the smucks at Apple try to figure out how to make mass messaging profitable.

Business Plan (5, Interesting)

MrMarket (983874) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838417)

1) Launch free web service
2) ???
3) Profit

Can someone remind me how Twitter makes money. Or, at least how to justify a $700 million valuation?

Re:Business Plan (2, Interesting)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838523)

Easy, if you value each tweet at 1 cent, that's how you derive the value. Of course, that's overvaluing each tweet by about 2 cents...

But seriously, the value would be derived exactly how all these other companies are "valued"... with eyeballs... sort of analogous to the late 90's mania. I'm all for tech, but it's pretty tough to make money with no business model whatsoever.

Steve leaves and within six months Apple goes and considers doing something really stupid (allegedly). Just shows you how important leadership in tech is. If Apple does this deal, unless they've got some kind of miracle plan, I'd sell any stock I had.

Re:Business Plan (2, Insightful)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838611)

Can someone remind me how Twitter makes money. Or, at least how to justify a $700 million valuation?

A few possible ways to derive value:

1) Corporate cockblock - Apple spends a little cash to make sure nobody else turns it into the Next Big Thing in some way that threatens the iPhone.

2) Eyeballs. I'm sure some beancounter will compare this deal to other ones to see how much each pair of eyeballs, or "impression", is worth in terms of valuation.

3) Ad revenue (related to #2). Do some research on how one might attach an ad to twitter messages. Possibly very short ads attached to the end of the messages? Possibly with opt-in text ads (need to make them of actual interest to user).

4) Iphone exclusives. Make Twitter better with some sort of iPhone integration. I'm sure the Apple folks could do something creative there better than I could speculate. In that case, the valuation would be related to the expected bump in iPhone sales, or upselling of plans.

Does any of that amount to $700M? Who knows.

How they COULD make money (5, Interesting)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838615)

Find out interesting keywords in what people say they are doing or talking about.

Advertise something local and highly related to that person, in the form of a discount offer or something.

Google ads for the attention-span-of-a-gnat generation?

Re:How they COULD make money (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#27839049)

Google ads for the attention-span-of-a-gnat generation?

I'm sorry, what were we just talking about?

Re:Business Plan (5, Insightful)

rackserverdeals (1503561) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838749)

The ??? used to be selling the attention you generate on your free service to advertisers. Google AdSense being the most profitable one for many. But it seems like the attention economy [howtonotma...online.com] is coming to an end, or at least the potential has been greatly reduced.

Twitter doesn't include ads in their tweets or even on their website. According to this Create a Revenue Model for Twitter contest [businessinsider.com] they don't generate any revenue.

Twitter isn't worth anything right now other than what investors would like to get back if they sell. I can't think of any way that their customer base could financially benefit any other company. The folks at Twitter seem to be in the same boat since they haven't been able to generate any significant revenue from their users.

Why? (3, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838445)

Is there really much point in buying twitter? How difficult a thing is it to write that application? Or is the purpose almost entirely to grab the existing users?

And how would this fit into Apple's strategy? I could think of much better ways that Apple could extend their MobileMe service.

The whole thing seems slightly fishy to me.

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838515)

Its more than the application. Its the millions of users that come with it.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838591)

And so did GeoCities and AOL but that didn't work out too well for Yahoo and Time Warner respectively. Users are fickle. They will move to other apps as trends dictate. Really I don't see the benefit to Apple. Now Apple might be talking to Twitter about better collaboration and integration.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

randombilly (1082811) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838767)

Hmmm.. I imagine that if I had 29 BILLION dollars burning a hole in my pocket, I might consider buying the single most talked about web trend in current times; if for nothing more than to make my parent company among the most talked about things in current times. Good business sense.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27838911)

Welcome to the next bubble. Lack of imagination regarding investment opportunities is what makes money flock to "pretty" projects, which later turn out to be spoiled brats, thus devaluing the investment. Can people with money to "waste" really not think of something better to do with it than blowing it on one-upping each other in the fame game?

Re:Why? (2, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838961)

Well considering this economy they might want to hold onto as much cash as they can. Apple traditionally buys companies that they really use. PA Semi was their last acquisition and it appears that they will design Apple's next iPod/iPhone chips. They bought NeXT and turned it into OS X. They bought the KeyGrip team and product from Macromedia that later became Final Cut. They bought Nothing Real for Shake, Emagic for Garage Band, etc.

Re:Why? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838935)

And so did GeoCities and AOL but that didn't work out too well for Yahoo and Time Warner respectively.

Time-Warner didn't buy AOL, they were bought by AOL. So the value of the userbase considerations weren't really comparable to the Apple-Twitter rumor or the Yahoo!-Geocities deal.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27838637)

The millions of users that are going to evaporate in the next 2 years when they suddenly realize how stupid this fad is.

Re:Why? (1)

Animaether (411575) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838759)

That's been said before... I'm thinking MSN.. or MySpace and Facebook. They're all still around.

What I -do- think will happen is that Twitter is too specific in what it does. That makes it reasonably easy to duplicate its functionality and integrate that straight into e.g. MSN or Facebook. There's no reason why you couldn't just 'tweet' what you're doing as your Facebook status. In fact, you already can, but only from within Twitter. If Facebook could hook into twitter on their end - 'log into twitter using your facebook' account - then it'd be easy to migrate users to a Facebook-native solution.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27838975)

You are really citing these yesteryear companies? MSN: huh? Myspace--more fresh but still circling the shitter. Facebook: you might not yet see it, but it's core customer base, affluent college students, think it's turned too much like myspace, and are leaving. They are all just fads, really. Paying for twitter now is just buying at its peak; it's all going to be downhill from here.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

keytoe (91531) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838665)

Its more than the application. Its the millions of users that come with it.

And how many of those millions aren't already included in the millions they have from the iPhone? Or the iTunes Music Store?

No, I don't buy it - and I bet Apple won't either!

Re:Why? (1)

neoform (551705) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838733)

Apple already has a massive user base with macs, ipods and iphones.. this makes no sense, especially since twitter has no revenue or business model.

Re:Why? (1)

rackserverdeals (1503561) | more than 4 years ago | (#27839007)

Its more than the application. Its the millions of users that come with it.

Screw that. Just add a micro blogging component into the RSS and ATOM specs and join micro blogging with regular blogging. You already have a well known social communication platform with millions of bloggers.

I'm surprised that hasn't happened yet and killed twitter.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27839065)

Users that come with free apps are users that leave with almost any attempt to make money from them. It seems like that moronic business plan would have run its course by now, but apparently there's always going to be another set of idiots with money to fund these sorts of losing propositions. I guess people see Google and think "It worked for 1 out of 10,000 businesses, and we're smart enough to make it work too!"

Re:Why? (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 4 years ago | (#27839103)

Its the millions of users that come with it.

Considering its already been ascertained by Nielsen that Twitter is losing 70% of its userbase after the first month.

It's quite simple: The Emperor is stark naked.

There's nothing to buy. The userbase is next to non-existent -- or will be soon enough.

Re:Why? (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838971)

Or is the purpose almost entirely to grab the existing users?

Why?

Oprah? Demi? Kutcher? A bunch of lame politicians pretending to be be cool? A bunch of fickle teenagers that will drop it in favor of the next thing by tomorrow lunchtime?

For Tweeple? Why would anyone want to pay money for that user base? Even in the heady days of the first dot.com bubble Twitter would be obviously vacuous, with no future.

Apple just don't need this waste of bandwidth. No-one does. Especially in the current economy. If anyone pays more than $50 for Twitter they need to fire their CFO, because he's overvalued it.

Re:Why? (0, Redundant)

TheLevelHeadedOne (700023) | more than 4 years ago | (#27839069)

...The whole thing seems slightly fishy to me.

Isn't this Apple? Shouldn't that be "The whole thing seems slightly FRUITY to me."?

Correcte me if I'm wrong, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27838459)

twitter is worth exactly as its user-base is. Or in other words, is it really $200M as web page where users can send their short messages?

Someone, Somewhere Is Shorting Something (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27838465)

Rumour...

Perturb the stocks...

Cash in.

Twitter used to tweet twats into twondering about stwock twinvestments.

Stupid twunts.

@twitter LOL! j/k I'm not that stupid, aka @Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27838473)

As seen on Twitter.

Twitcher (2, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838475)

I don't know, to me this Twitter tool is really synonymous with some sort of a twitch. Wouldn't the more appropriate name be 'Twitcher' with a slogan: Waiting for your twitch!

Seriously, 700 million USD for this just shows that a dollar is not worth that much today and also it shows that people don't know what else to invest their money into, they would jump on anything, reminds me of selling a pencil at 50% loss but 'making it up in volume'.

Re:Twitcher (3, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838815)

reminds me of selling a pencil at 50% loss but 'making it up in volume'.

Easy :

The quick buck artist pencil seller:

  1. Sell pencil at a 50% loss
  2. Jab pencil in buyer's eye socket
  3. Offer to remove said pencil for 5,000% PROFIT

The scare-monger pencil seller:

  1. Sell pencils at 50% loss
  2. Start rumour that they cause lead poisoning
  3. Sell "anti-lead-poisoning kits" at mega-PROFIT

The commodities market manipulator pencil seller:

  1. Sell pencils at 50% loss
  2. Sell pencil sharpener at 5,000% PROFIT
  3. Stop selling pencils and create artificial pencil shortage
  4. Offer to buy pencils at 1,000% over original price
  5. Have confederate sell pencils to speculators at "only" a 500% markup - PROFIT
  6. Announce that pens are the new pencils, buy back speculators pencils at 1 cent on the dollar
  7. Move to another town, lather, rinse, repeat

Grab the money and run (5, Insightful)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838489)

This reminds me of Novell buying Word Perfect. Paid over a billion dollars, couldn't sell for $100m just years later if their life depended on it. If Twitter refuses the offer, they are dumber than a sack of bricks. In a few years no one will pay attention to them. Just another useless, 15-minute-of-fame "Oprah technology".

Re:Grab the money and run (0, Offtopic)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838761)

Just becasue your limited imagination and intelligence doesn't find a use for it, doesn't mean there isn't one.

Re:Grab the money and run (1)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838943)

Just becasue your limited imagination and intelligence doesn't find a use for it, doesn't mean there isn't one.

(cough, cough) 700 million dollars (cough, cough). This is not government. Most private companies should have a little better understanding of the value of money.

Re:Grab the money and run (2, Insightful)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 4 years ago | (#27839023)

Novell - word perfect is actually a pretty good example. Obviously, Wordperfect had a use. And several years later it was used less, and thus worth less. Would Google be able to sell off youtube for the 2 billion it paid, even after they themselves couldn't make it profitable? Its a valid point. If you're just in it for the money, now would be the time to sell twitter. If you think you are revolutionizing communication you don't sell.

I don't care what you are doing right now (0, Offtopic)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838493)

Even if your name is Apple.

Seriously though, this would be a better fit for Google wouldn't it, since they are an information and advertising company.

Was getting bored with Twitter anyway (4, Insightful)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838499)

At first milidly interested in the technology, eventually appalled at the general lack of content.

Or to put it another way, twitter is the sound of millions of people collectively discovering they have nothing important to say. Or in today's "Pickles", "Is it me, or is the world getting sillier and sillier?"

Thats it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27838507)

I don't use twitter now and if this happens, I'll use it even less.

Triple sell is flashing. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27838533)

Take a lesson from the founders of Skype, who sold it to Ebay and are probably laughing still.

Re:Triple sell is flashing. (1)

rogermcdodger (1113203) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838753)

The last I heard was that they were now trying to buy it back for 2/3rds of what they sold it for. So yeah I guess they are.

How does one value a service like Twitter and Co? (1)

xquark (649804) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838553)

I'm interested in knowing how these numbers like $250m and $700m come about. I see absolutely no monetary value in such services, even the so-called ad-revenue or social data mining models all seem like big loss harbours rather than sources of profit.

Are we back to the late 90s "no business model yet possible future earning potential" view of businesses?

Re:How does one value a service like Twitter and C (1)

N7DR (536428) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838641)

Are we back to the late 90s "no business model yet possible future earning potential" view of businesses?

Yes.

Take the f'ing cash!!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27838567)

I don't see how you could turn down 750 mill for shitter! Useless and all hype.

If your stupid enough to use Twitter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27838613)

Seriously, I'd like to see this sucker buried. How about a log of EVERYTHING you do, where, with whom, &c. &c. and who you know, EVERYTHING they do, &c. &c. plus add photos/videos. Writing on the wall? Surprised Google isn't buying it, but Apple wouldn't be much worse. People really are sheep.

How do we feel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27838617)

What is this, drphildot? Why should we "feel" anything? A private company wants to buy a private company.

Unless you are a stockholder, you should feel that private entities should be left to their own devices.

Re:How do we feel? (-1, Redundant)

earlymon (1116185) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838857)

Right. Fucking. On.

If I'd have had mod points, you'd have had one by now.

Re:How do we feel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27839165)

Right. Fucking. On.

If I'd have had mod points, you'd have had one by now.

Besides the fact that this is a complete rumor, more towards the realm of "fabrication" than "rumor", too much evidence exists to deny it from both sides, and it's just plain false.

But don't let me stop you from being reminded that Apple exists, thus you must hate it. Just at least come up with an actual reason next time, then someone might take you seriously.

That would be nice (0, Troll)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838661)

It would be a lot more convenient to dislike them if they were under the same roof. I could just brush Twitter off in the same breath as brushing off OS X or the iPhone. The time I would save!

I've used Twitter... (1)

Cormophyte (1318065) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838717)

...and in conclusion I'm hoping Apple doesn't buy Twitter because Twitter's a fad and will be worthless in a few years. Thank you, I'll collect my check at the door.

What value (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838727)

can Apple get out of it that they can't just using the API?
Selling advertising isn't really what Apple does.

I could see Google speculation, although I would rather they implemented there own.

Brand Name (4, Insightful)

Tokerat (150341) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838805)

Twitter has a very well known brand-name, probably about half of which comes from people bitching about it, or cracking jokes ("ok poop is coming out"). The application itself is nothing short of a status message, which where defined as early as May, 1993 (RFC 1459 [faqs.org], Section 5.1) or earlier (RFC 742 [faqs.org], December 1977 - finger w/plan), and there are dozens of "microblogging" sites out there already.

If anyone buys Twitter, it will only be for the most over hyped and thus well-known up-and-coming brand names of the last couple years.

Twitter = Narcissistic dog snot (3, Funny)

Verminator (559609) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838831)

First Steve kills the Newton.

Then, MacBooks with no FireWire.

Now this.

OK, OK, we get it already. You hate us.

Twitter - "triumph of humanity" (5, Insightful)

Black Sabbath (118110) | more than 4 years ago | (#27838925)

Twitter. Triumph of humanity [apple.com]

I admit I don't get the fascination.

Technically, its DIY IRC channel meets party-line SMS. Cool. The "how" I get.

But WHY? The "why" completely escapes me. Is Twitter more profound than the inanity of IRC and the incessant texting of pubescent students on public transport?

At best it looks like a way to share spontaneous brain dumps with mates, at worst it seems like a pathetic attempt at social closeness between a bunch of strangers you wouldn't even look at if you bumped into them.

Whatever it is - if Twitter is humanity's triumph then we're f**ked.

Either that or I'm an old fart.

Re:Twitter - "triumph of humanity" (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27839181)

...

Either that or I'm an old fart.

your nick confirm the second option

--
eating bats rules !

Correction (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27838993)

3 times the *sellers'* estimation of twitter's worth. To me, twitter ain't worth .

Twitter and Apple (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 4 years ago | (#27839051)

It's hard to think of a more ideal match.

Apple is very close to the point of self-parody.

Evil scheme plotted! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27839061)

Apple will use Twitter to attack the PC market and force Macs upon everyone. Just like they tried to infect PCs with that FinallyFast software...

Totally bogus (1, Interesting)

angst_ridden_hipster (23104) | more than 4 years ago | (#27839077)

First off, it's not even rumor-mongering -- it's some hack making shit up to increase his pageviews.

Secondly, it's a stupid idea.

Thirdly, it ain't gonna happen.

Fourthly, everyone expects Apple to buy everything (Sony, Nintendo, Be, Sun, Palm, ...) and they generally don't.

Fifthly, who cares? Twitter's already over. The "cool" people have moved on to hype other new stuff (remember Blogs? remember Podcasts?)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...