According to LinkedIn, 87 of the 641 people who say they currently work at Twitter were formerly employed by Google. (Twitter said this week that it has 600 employees, so that number’s a bit off, but probably in the general neighborhood.)

Early Google employees don’t get as much credit as those of, say, PayPal, for founding and funding a new generation of start-ups. But former Googlers seem to have made a practice of infiltrating promising new tech companies as they look for the next big thing.

At one point last year, it was noted that 200 former Googlers worked at Facebook, making up 12.5 percent of its staff at the time, including top executives like Sheryl Sandberg and many of the product people Facebook brought in through acquisitions.

Something similar seems to be happening at Twitter, though it’s still much smaller. CEO Dick Costolo was with Google after it acquired his start-up FeedBurner (but some say that means he’s not truly born-and-bred Google). Co-founders Evan Williams and Biz Stone (both no longer in operational roles) were also formerly at Google, though again, Williams came in through an acquisition (of his Pyra Labs, which made Blogger).

The Google influence seems especially prevalent on Twitter’s product team. Satya Patel, who is director of product management, was formerly a well-respected Googler, and nearly every Twitter product manager seems to have had some history at the Plex — save for the four who were recently let go.

Twitter creative director Doug Bowman came from Google (in fact, he left in a huff), as did general counsel Alex Macgillivray and VP Katie Jacobs Stanton, who leads international strategy.

Glenn Otis Brown, Twitter’s newly added director of business development for media, was formerly products counsel at Google and head of music partnerships at YouTube.

Twitter spokeswoman Carolyn Penner, who herself came to Twitter from Google, said she could not provide any specific numbers about how many of her coworkers matched that description.

A Twitter insider said that Twitter’s Googliness is less apparent than Facebook’s, because fewer members of the core leadership team came from Google. Even if head honcho Costolo did stop through Mountain View en route to hipper San Francisco, execs Jack Dorsey (executive chairman in charge of product), Adam Bain (revenue), Ali Rowghani (CFO) and Michael Abbott (engineering) did not work at Google.

Google isn’t entirely happy to be spawning other people’s workforces. The company has famously paid dearly to keep its top employees from departing to take roles at Facebook, and more recently, Twitter. Twitter and Google have been partners in the past, but more recently have had testy relations over renegotiating a data distribution deal.

Thomas Korte, the ringleader of start-up incubator AngelPad and an early Googler, noted in a recent conversation that following former Googlers’ successful infiltration of Twitter, Square and Foursquare seem likely to be the next ex-Googler targets.

Korte pointed out that Foursquare recently hired the well-connected and respected former Googlers Morgan Missen and Benjy Weinberger (both actually worked at Twitter en route!) and Square recently appointed former Googler Megan Quinn as its director of products.

Besides the beginnings of strong referral networks, Korte added, these up-and-coming companies have one other thing going for them: “They’re the only ones that can cough up the salaries to match Google,” he said.

However, added sources, Google is fighting hard to counter the Twitter offer, so Pichai could easily stay with his current employer. At Google, which he joined in April 2004, Pichai is a VP of Product Management.

If successful, the hiring of Pichai would be a major raid for Twitter, and mark its place next to Facebook as an up-and-comer in the race to entice away top Google executives.

More importantly, Twitter could use the product help.

The San Francisco microblogging company, which just raised a massive funding, has done relatively little product development recently, in large part because its focus has been absorbed by overwhelming growth and infrastructure problems.

Pichai certainly fits the bill as a head of product for Twitter, given his job at Google. The well-regarded tech exec heads the Silicon Valley search giant’s high-profile Chrome browser and Chrome OS efforts.

Pichai was front and center at an unveiling of Chrome OS plans in November, and touted the Chrome browser’s 40 million users only a year after its debut in 2009.

But not everyone is so sanguine. Paul Buchheit, founder of Gmail (and FriendFeed) predicted a very short life for Google’s still-in-beta Chrome OS, noting–on Twitter in December–that he thought the product would be axed or fused with Android in 2011.

As Mobilized’s Ina Fried wrote at the time:

Google originally hoped to have Chrome OS-based computers for sale this year, but has run into some delays. Last week, the company released a beta version of the software and distributed to testers an unbranded laptop running the operating system. However, it’s worth noting that in doing so, Google has hardly made the strongest hardware case for the operating system, using a relatively bulky netbook with a reliable, but hardly power-sipping Intel Atom processor.

The idea of merging the two operating systems has some merit. Doing so would pair a top-notch browser with an ecosystem that already has a lot of applications and developers.

For now, the operating systems are distinct, with Android running hundreds of thousands of applications and used largely on phones, along with a few tablets, such as Samsung’s Galaxy Tab. However, Google VP Andy Rubin confirmed after his appearance at last week’s D: Dive Into Mobile that the company is working on a new version of Android, known as Honeycomb, that is geared exclusively to tablets. (The full video of Rubin’s onstage appearance was posted on our site earlier today.)

Acer and a couple of other hardware makers have said they plan to do Chrome OS netbooks next year once the software is ready.

If hired, Pichai would fill an open spot left by the departure of longtime Twitter VP of Product Jason Goldman, who stepped down at the beginning of December.

The attempt to bring on Pichai to lead product brings into question former CEO Evan Williams’s role at the company. When he stepped down as CEO, Williams said it was in order to focus on product strategy, and when Goldman gave up his position, many assumed Williams was the natural substitute.

While Pichai would be a strong choice for the job, he has not been an active user of the product.

Until recently, that is.

Pichai’s own Twitter account has a grand total of 118 tweets, with about a third of them posted in the last month.

Yesterday, in an interview with BoomTown’s Kara Swisher at D@CES, Twitter CEO Dick Costolo said some product goals for Twitter included a better experience for passive users and a more “agnostic” experience across platforms.

Costolo also mentioned a new zero tolerance policy for infrastructure problems, and said that Twitter does not consider itself a “platform company,” but rather one that has APIs.

The Google-Twitter connection is strong, and not just on the we-want-to-buy-you front–Google has often cast its acquisitive eyes at Twitter and still does.

And many Twitter employees were formerly Googlers, although not all in the same era or area.

Costolo himself came to Twitter after being at Google, which had acquired his last start-up, FeedBurner.

Other former Googlers include many on Twitter’s product team, such as Othman Laraki and Elad Gil, who were product managers at Google Mobile Maps and Google Toolbar before joining Twitter through its acquisition of their geo start-up Mixer Labs.

In addition, last year, Twitter nabbed Google lawyer Alexander Macgillivray as its general counsel.

And, of course, Twitter co-founders Williams and Biz Stone had worked at Google after it bought Blogger. They created Twitter after they left the company.

It’s possible that Pichai leaving Google might have something to do with the company favoring the Android mobile operating system over Chrome OS, but seems more likely that the Twitter role would just be a compelling opportunity for him.

Twitter declined comment, and Google has not responded to an inquiry about Pichai.

Until this nail-biting talent raid has a resolution, here’s a video of Pichai talking at the Web 2.0 Summit in 2009:

While All Things Digital had been using FeedBurner–now owned by Google (GOOG)–for a while, and although it pains us to leave any creation made by Dick Costolo, the new provider of our daily email newsletter is MailChimp.

For ATD readers, we think MailChimp is more versatile and flexible. We can publish more than just our RSS feed within the email, including hot and trending topics, links to evergreen coverage and apps, and advertising.

Plus, it’s prettier, as you can see from the screenshots below.

It will deliver every morning at about 6 am PT, and you can sign up here.

Yesterday, BoomTown headed to the well-appointed downtown San Francisco HQ of Twitter as part of a renewed quest that I have dubbed “Meet the Twits.”

No, really! Since Twitter has been on a significant hiring spree for all kinds of execs and staffers–it now has almost 250 employees–I have been in need of some serious meeting and greeting to see what’s going on there at the microblogging kingpin.

In fact, on my way to chat with COO Dick Costolo and Vice President of Engineering Michael Abbott–newly arrived from Palm and going full Ahab on the fail whale–I ran into former Google (GOOG) exec and spanking-new Twitter international head Katie Stanton and February-appointed CFO Ali Rowghani, formerly of Pixar.

It’s exec-mania over there!

Thus, the first place to start had to be a chit-chat with Costolo, who is about to have his one-year anniversary at Twitter as No. 2 to CEO and co-founder Evan Williams.

Costolo, as anyone who knows him well will tell you, is a very funny guy and also pretty forthright on what’s happening at Twitter.

He’d know, of course, as an early adviser and investor at the start-up–who came to Twitter rather suddenly after leaving Google, which had bought Costolo’s Feedburner.

Here’s the interview I did with Costolo, in which he talks about new execs, promoted tweets and trends, what’s next for the Silicon Valley darling and also the false, but funny, rumor of an IPO “craving” he has:

(You can also click here to see MediaMemo’s Peter Kafka’s video interview with Costolo in April about its ad business and his thoughts on Twitter’s third-party developers.)

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100818/twitters-coo-dick-costolo-talks-about-management-monetization-and-ipo-cravings/feed/ 1 http://allthingsd.com/20081124/when-twitter-met-facebook-the-acquisition-deal-that-fail-whaled/ http://allthingsd.com/20081124/when-twitter-met-facebook-the-acquisition-deal-that-fail-whaled/#comments Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:45:09 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=6883

[Updated with new details about deal, including who worked on it and info on a cash component.]

About three weeks ago, Facebook and Twitter ended several weeks of serious talks, in which Facebook was offering to acquire Twitter for $500 million of its stock, which also included a cash component.

While rumors of Facebook’s interest were brought up in an interview with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg at the Web 2.0 Summit a few weeks ago, some shot down the idea as silly.

Quite incorrectly, as it turns out, since top execs at both Facebook and Twitter were right then at the tail end of discussions, which were initiated by the privately held Facebook in mid-October, about bringing the two together.

Those talks, sources on both sides said, are now over.

So why did the deal break down?

Well, as is usually the case, over price–was $500 million worth of Facebook stock actually worth $500 million?–and the typical concerns about integration and costs.

But, more important, it seems, was a feeling among Twitter investors and execs that the start-up should still take a shot at building its revenues–there are none right now–as well as it had done at building its growth.

“It’s more about timing,” said one person familiar with Twitter’s motivations. “There is a strong feeling that there is still an opportunity–even with the economic downturn–to blow this thing out.”

Still, combining the world’s fastest-growing social-networking site with what is quickly becoming the best-known microblogging service is actually a natural fit.

That’s especially true given that Facebook–for all its powerful online social connections–has seen Twitter race past it in innovating in the “status update” arena.

While some sources at Facebook said Zuckerberg was becoming frustrated by the buzz Twitter was getting–a market that should have been dominated by Facebook–others at the company said he was interested in buying Twitter because of his respect for its progress.

Indeed, at the Web 2.0 interview, Zuckerberg called Twitter an “elegant model” and said that he was “really impressed by what they’ve done.”

Indeed, with about six million registrations, as reported in October, up 600 percent over the last year, the San Francisco-based Twitter–launched in 2006–has had impressive growth.

(It has also been plagued by technical issues, which are–to be fair–decreasing.)

In any case, for those not familiar with it, the premise of Twitter is dead simple: A registered user logs in via the Internet or a mobile phone and answers the “What are you doing?” question the service asks in only 140 characters or fewer.

It’s quite a clever idea, although–so far–not a money-making one.

To try to goose that, Twitter’s board replaced the engineer who created Twitter, Jack Dorsey, with another founder, Evan Williams, who had served as its chairman and chief product officer.

The more experienced Williams (pictured here) had already built one company–Pyra Labs, which created the Blogger blogging service–that he sold to Google in 2003. He also started the audio and video search site Odeo, where Twitter was actually born.

Still, its investors have not come down on Twitter to hold back its growth efforts, and have handed over $20 million to the start-up so far. In its last round, Twitter was valued at $98 million.

Its funders include: Union Square Ventures, Charles River Ventures, Digital Garage, Spark Capital and Bezos Expeditions, backed by Amazon Founder and CEO Jeff Bezos.

In addition, well-known Silicon Valley figures, such as Marc Andreessen and Ron Conway, have also invested. Interestingly, Andreessen is also on Facebook’s board.

Other private investors include FeedBurner Co-Founder (and now Googler) Dick Costolo, former Epinions Co-Founder Naval Ravikant and former Googler Chris Sacca.

Twitter needs all the investors it can get, since it has no revenue, although it has been exploring things like charging business customers and adding advertising into the consumer service.

Lack of revenues was an issue for Facebook, said sources, especially related to fees Twitter pays for delivery of its messages to cellphones.

While the issue has been manageable in the U.S., Twitter cut off its SMS support in some international markets this summer because of too-high costs.

But, if Twitter was offered to Facebook’s 120 million users, Facebook execs estimated that it might have to deal with huge SMS fees–up to $75 million annually.

“Facebook has its own revenue-generating challenges,” said one person close to the company. “As much as Twitter would give them a lift in the status area, it was still a worry.”

Not enough, said several sources, to stop Facebook from making another approach at some point in the future. “We’d hate to see Twitter go to another company,” said one source.

Indeed, while all are even more price-conscious than Facebook, large companies that could also be interested include: Google (GOOG), Yahoo (YHOO), Microsoft (MSFT) or a large telecom company, such as Verizon (VZ).

If it had completed the deal to buy Twitter, it would have been Facebook’s most significant acquisition by far.

Zuckerberg and Williams did meet and get along well, but the deal was primarily negotiated by Spark Capital partner Bijan Sabet (Spark is a Twitter investor) and Facebook deal guy Dan Rose.

But in this time, at least, the Twitter side was still not interested in selling at the price Facebook had offered.

The $500 million offered was in an all-stock form, said sources on both sides, at the $15 billion valuation that came from the Microsoft’s investment in the company last October.

The Twitter side felt that figure was inflated and the shares should be valued at the lower figures that have also been reported for Facebook’s true valuation, more in the $5 billion range.

That would have given the deal a $150 million price tag, which was seen as too low, especially since it was in Facebook stock and not cash initially.

In fact, Twitter wanted cash, which some sources say was offered by Facebook in the $50 to $100 million range, in addition to stock, but taking too much stock was still a major issue.

There are other ways the pair could have approximated a safer choice for Twitter, via warrants, of course, or other methods.

But, said several sources close to Twitter, the primary reason for not selling was because its board simply did not want to yet or perhaps ever.

Said one source: “The question is, is it really a good idea to sell on the first chance you get?”

Well, for Twitter, we’ll just have to wait and see about that, of course.

[Photo of Evan Williams by Joi Ito. Licensed under Creative Commons 2.0 By-Attribution license.]

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20081124/when-twitter-met-facebook-the-acquisition-deal-that-fail-whaled/feed/ 31 http://allthingsd.com/20070521/acquisition-fever-my-prognosis/ http://allthingsd.com/20070521/acquisition-fever-my-prognosis/#comments Mon, 21 May 2007 09:27:41 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/20070521/acquisition-fever-my-prognosis/ When Microsoft is willing to fork over $6 billion to buy an online ad network, in the wake of a $3.1 billion bid by Google for another, you know the industry was going to develop a serious case of faux acquisition fever.

It is characterized by heedless speculation, rampant rumormongering and delusions of grandeur. The known pathogens: investment bankers and venture capitalists, who ramp up their spiels in the froth that results from a series of major deals in an industry sector.

And so comes the rumor that Yahoo was kicking the wheels at the social-networking site Bebo, which is the third big player in the business after MySpace and Facebook with particular strength in Britain, in this report in that country’s Sunday Telegraph.

Though Yahoo surely is looking for a social-networking site after it failed in its attempt to buy Facebook for upward of $1.5 billion, it seems a reach that it would pay $1 billion for Bebo, which is significantly smaller and less high-profile (though it is a well-done service). In fact, let us pooh-pooh this particular rumor as wishful thinking, despite the fact that eventually Bebo will be sold.

And what of the many other heated rumors out there?

FeedBurner: Will Google pay $100 million for the Chicago-based company that has been one of the first to place text advertising links into the news feeds? According to my sources at both companies, yes indeed.

And it seems a bargain for the search giant to move swiftly ahead in an area it has lagged in and acquire a solid management and engineering team made of people quite like Google’s. Unless there is a competing bid, expect this one to be completed sooner rather than later.

Photobucket: Will News Corp. spend the big bucks for the company (based in Denver and Palo Alto, Calif.) that stores and distributes all kinds of media for users of sites like News Corp.-owned MySpace? Also, yes indeed.

But the price is more likely to be $300 million for this deal that is now in its final stages of negotiation. Given that Photobucket is a remora fish to MySpace, riding along on its growth, few others would make the play for it, even though one might expect that News Corp. will try to make the service bigger than just MySpace (well, they better if they are paying that rich price).

Facebook: Will Mark Zuckerberg, who has his own delusions of grandeur, give it all up for the big bucks? Um, no. Despite an endless series of speculative articles, such as this recent one that gets points for creativity (Facebook to Google? And hurt Orkut’s feelings?), this will not occur anytime soon.

Unless, that is, there was an offer so disgustingly over the top that it wouldn’t be possible to turn it down. And that’s not happening. While there has been lots of looking and endless talking (yes, Yahoo, Viacom, even Microsoft have been to its Palo Alto headquarters), this company will remain independent and perhaps attempt an IPO.

Whether that is a good idea or not is the subject of another post, but here is a direct quote I put in a post that I got from Jim Breyer of Accel Partners, which is one of the principal investors in Facebook, only a few weeks ago. I think “Facebook is not for sale” kind of says it all.

Unless Breyer is a liar–hey, that rhymes!–but he’s not.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20070521/acquisition-fever-my-prognosis/feed/ 1