Because Twitter has received investment on the promise of eventual profit.
A low / no growth model is only feasible if they don't have investors / shareholders bucking for returns at every decision point. Twitter, has made a deal with the devil in becoming a publicly traded company because at some point needs to show their stakeholders a path to profitability. Job cuts, cutting expenditure whilst hopefully maintaining profits, are a good way to demonstrate this.
If Twitter wants to become a public internet utility, like wikipedia, existing investors will demand something like a share buyback, how will Twitter afford this without a period of profitability?
Finding a sugar daddy to buy them out is one option but the recent sutors probably felt that twitter stock is overvalued, largely because of the lack of profits.
It is not 'making a deal with the devil' to take other people's money on the basis that you'll return a certain amount of profit - and then not do so. The 'devil' it would seem are the Twitter founders, who took investors money on false premises.
So Twitter has hit a ceiling, they are making adjustments, which sadly are op cuts. If they want to hire more people than can grow their numbers.
We stayed in a mountain bungalow during summer vacation, there was a waterfall close enough to hear (and be loud) but far enough away that it's noise sounded like a pleasant version of TV static.
I had my best night's sleep in years. My theory was that it drowned out ambient bumps and crashes that usually wake me up at night.
I recall camping at some relatives that had a waterfall near enough that you heard it any time you were outside. After about the second day or so you hardly even noticed.
A low / no growth model is only feasible if they don't have investors / shareholders bucking for returns at every decision point. Twitter, has made a deal with the devil in becoming a publicly traded company because at some point needs to show their stakeholders a path to profitability. Job cuts, cutting expenditure whilst hopefully maintaining profits, are a good way to demonstrate this.
If Twitter wants to become a public internet utility, like wikipedia, existing investors will demand something like a share buyback, how will Twitter afford this without a period of profitability?
Finding a sugar daddy to buy them out is one option but the recent sutors probably felt that twitter stock is overvalued, largely because of the lack of profits.