:-) To the point Kevin!
Now to waste time ....
We should remember that __investors__ created the pain of the .com by
applying anti-evolutionary forces i.e.. over investing in lots of Dodos.
However on a technical level we will, like evolution, go through these
cycles. In the case of Twitter what we will have is maybe a few
hundred micro-sites created. Of which say 10-15 will be solid ideas
that last for years, of which they will be consolidated into 1 or 2
actual sites in the next 5-10 years. This is the history of tech (home
computer boom anyone?), it's how ideas _evolve_ bring on the boom!!!
The .com boom (outside of the silly financial side) allowed us to
experiment with a whole bunch of crazy ideas of which a small
proportion survived and the functionality is still being consolidated
into a handful of very useful sites today, so it was with social
networks (and still to an extent is), so it will be with the realtime
Evolution is messy, it's not rational and not scientific - it's trial
and error - however in the long run it can be staggeringly efficient -
human beings out of soup, I mean crikey!!!
So yes, lots more small micro-sites please.
On 20 Jul 2009, at 14:10, Kevin Mesiab wrote:
While others might waste time educating you with a proper debate,
some of us are busy profiting on page views.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:03 AM, Christian Heilmann <chris.heilm...@gmail.com
Kevin Mesiab wrote:
That for starters....
Pageviews, the success metrics for people who want instant
Do we really need more sites that create more traffic for Twitter
without a single chance to become a business or help the content
quality? Burning money was fun during the first .com boom, can we
please stop now?
CEO, Mesiab Labs L.L.C.