Comments on: Getting Twisted Over Twitter

By: 3by9 » The Future Is Movable

3by9 » The Future Is Movable — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:26:59 +0000

[...] a finite amount of time during the day, and they’re displacing old interests with things like Twitter and Qik. When people are doing something new instead of what they were doing before, there is now [...]

By: Mark Cuban: The Best Equity is Sweat Equity : The Drama 2.0 Show

Mark Cuban: The Best Equity is Sweat Equity : The Drama 2.0 Show — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:04:41 +0000

[...] light of the erudite advice given by Mahalo CEO Jason Calacanis and venture capitalist Fred Wilson in regards to Twitter’s lack of a business model, I thought it would be worthwhile to share Mark Cuban’s January 2 post, “The Best [...]

By: Drama’s Roundup - January 3, 2008 : The Drama 2.0 Show

Drama’s Roundup - January 3, 2008 : The Drama 2.0 Show — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 01:33:23 +0000

[...] Net Site Is Said to Be for Sale Why It’s Interesting: As I noted in my post about Twitter, Plaxo, a Silicon Valley darling that hasn’t figured out a way to turn a profit since its [...]

By: Drama 2.0

Drama 2.0 — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:59:04 +0000

Sorry Stanley. I’m not into experiments – I’m into making money. And last time I checked, most of the limited partners who give VCs money to play with are into the latter as well.

When these idiotic Web 2.0 startups stop masquerading as real businesses, I’ll stop criticizing them. Until then, there are no separate business rules for Web 2.0 that don’t apply to any other industry.

By: Stanley Miller

Stanley Miller — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:27:45 +0000

Drama: You need to set aside your conventional way of thinking when profiling Web 2.0 companies. Much of what you see in Web 2.0 are public “experiments.” Sometimes things blow up in the lab – like the the excessive downtime with Twitter. Anyway, you’ll drive yourself nuts always looking for that darn business model. The business model part may never come. View the founder(s) and investors in Twitter as “explorers” more than entrepreneurs. Judge the expeditions and experiments accordingly not the model. There is none.

Does it feel good?
Does it create emotion?
Is their broad demographic appeal?
Is it fun?
Is it simple?
Is it brandable?

Twitter is a big Yes. Tweet on!

By: Drama 2.0

Drama 2.0 — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:33:42 +0000

Antje: send them my way. I can get them fake user accounts for half that.

By: Antje Wilsch

Antje Wilsch — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:23:56 +0000

The entrepreneurs I talk to who are all making the rounds now are all saying that VCs are saying this: get traffic, monetize later. Is there any wonder people are buying fake user accounts for 10cents from India?

By: Drama 2.0

Drama 2.0 — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:35:35 +0000

Michael: critical mass can be very important, but I think the idea that critical mass trumps revenue is foolish. There are obviously significant differences between television networks and Internet startups that I dont’t need to point out.

Stanley: since when are revenue models not viable for “businesses” that build brands, manufacture feelings and promote play? World of Warcraft and Cyworld don’t offer products and services that are practical but they make lots of money.

By: Stanley Miller

Stanley Miller — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 14:55:33 +0000

Drama: Once again you’re doubting the visionaries of our time. You’re thinking in terms of the “old economy” where once businesses sought to create practical products and services; things that had man vs. nature appeal. In the “new economy” businesses seek to build brands, manufacture feelings, and promote play; man now seeks his nurture.

“Twitter” and “tweets” are awesome brand plays. At this point, the underlying service is secondary to building that brand. Build the brand and you can serve up anything underneath it. A social network for tweens? Tweriffic!

I say, let it ride!

By: Michael Camilleri

Michael Camilleri — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 14:49:46 +0000

I suppose there’s something to the argument about critical mass. Critical mass seems to have been the plan of television networks for the last fifty or so years and from what I can see it worked out fairly well for them. However, considering where they’re now headed perhaps it’d be wise to make sure that strategy is going to hold up as well for the next decade as it did for the preceding five.