Twitter force-fed $35m in venture capital Amidst the deepest world financial crisis since The Great Depression, Twitter has landed another $35 million in funding. Co-founder Biz Stone claims his Web2.0rhea outfit wasn't looking for more financing. But two separate venture capitalists insisted, defying countless claims that tech VC is drying up. And according to …
wow, $35 mil for a vain, narcissistic, useless piece of sh*t. why am I not surprised.
look at me I just posted fifteen words for the world to read. I would DIE if the world wasn't aware of the complete garbage I'm currently (for the next ten minutes) involved in.
With the full intent of sounding morbid, humanity is coming to an end. All priorities are in the WRONG place.
They could just stop free accounts being made and chare $10 for new accounts. Nobody currently will get annoyed, the company makes money. Then hook shit up with ads and other garbage.
I've never used it but I imagine that it's something like how I use my facebook status. Filling in song lyrics every few minutes to fill up all my friend's pages and forcefeed my morals into peoples eye sockets. Also the occasional mundane detail of my life.
How making this could require anywhere near $2M is beyond me, let alone what they have. A few giant databases. A few heavy duty web servers. Some developers.
They could buy a blimp with a big LCD panel on it and then get people to pay $5 dollars for a message to appear there, or bid for it. Or something. I don't care really..
Why can't they charge for it if it's currently free? Technology companies have a long history of starting out as zero-cost and then going to a fee-based structure. Why else do you think the $9.95/mn dial-up ISP is called NetZERO? Similarly, they may limit their mini-messages to 140 characters, but that does not mean they can't or won't inject ads into the messages. And sending standalone messages would not be considered spam because the people receiving the messages have a business relationship with the company (no, I personally don't believe that means "it can't be spam", but the US system of "justice" believes it).
So how can they make money? Here are a few ways:
1. Charge people to create an account (I'm assuming you need an account in order to create a message).
2. Charge a per-message fee (even if it's a small fee such as one cent).
3. Charge per-message fees to allow users to send larger messages (I'm assuming you mentioned a 140-character message because that's the size limit they impose on the message).
4. Sell advertising space on the page where users create the messages.
5. Sell advertising space to be delivered with the messages.
6. Sell access to the system so that advertisers can read the messages and develop targeted advertisements (either targeted to the author based on all messages they've sent, or targeted to the recipient based on all messages they've received).
7. Charge for access to the API.
These are just the ideas I came up with in about 10 seconds. I'm sure if I actually cared enough to think about it, I could come up with a lot more. But suffice it to say, there are plenty of ways to make money. The question is -- would people continue using the service if they had to pay for it?
Apparently some twitters can get some 170 hits within a few minutes of updating information and the story goes that Stephen Fry's tweats about being stuck in a lift invoked many replies before he managed to get the lift working again.
I think it is one of these phenomena about people, lots and lots of people.
Maybe something along lines of: yeh, we don't mind celebrities making millions a year and are prepared to pay a fortune to see/hear/see & hear them but we only wish 2 pence to our NHS.
Or even pork pies. I heard a story that most supermarket exit surveys show that people don't wish to purchase pork pies but the little devils fly off the shelves at a fantastic rate.
Or further still: iFart (well, not me really - I mean I didn't really just pass wind but the range of apps for iPhone and iPod that make it sound like one did (if you know what I mean)).
Maybe it is just a people thing?
I realize in today's politically correct environment you cannot classify/criticize anyone into a category they don't wish to be in, but every Twitterer I've met (as in real life) is a self absorbed time waster who should be fired. They blitter and blatter about every thought in their heads, ranging from company information to how much they don't like their boss. I for one wonder how they keep the stamina up to chatter their daily life to the world.
But then I also keep wondering if social networking isn't yet another fad, that when the whole world is on a network people will start to realize that everybody is boring and uninteresting.
The signs are obvious: it's all over the BBC all the bloody time, even when Stephen Fry isn't giving the world realtime updates on being stuck in a lift.
I do find it terribly ironic that the vast majority of people who are so eagerly grasping the opportunity to express their every waking thought, be it through Twitter, Facefuck, MySpazz, Speak Ure Branez or even, heavens forbid, The Sun's comment pages (look upon them, ye mighty, and despair of the future) are patently unaware that their thoughts are inconsequential drivel.
After initially being incredibly skeptical, I've come to LOVE twitter and use it constantly. But I just can't work out Twitter's business model. How the hell are they ever going to make money?
As far as I can tell, their model is: Create site, become popular, and milk the investment until it dries up.
Gotta love twitter, it's strangely addictive in an odd unfathomable kind of way.
Gotta love more loads of people posting short messages on a website with their thoughts and opinions on why people posting short messages on a website with their thoughts and opinions is self serving and beneath them.
Gotta love the irony
Gotta love the internet.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
