my statement here was not providing "small" on the size of the company, but rather, "small" on the size of the idea. to re-iterate, making a piece of software that simply renders home_timeline is thinking too small.
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Lil Peck <lilp...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 7:45 PM, @siculars <sicul...@gmail.com> wrote: > > @raffi @rsarver, I wrote up my two cents earlier, > > http://siculars.posterous.com/twitter-monoculture. I just don't > > appreciate the direction you all are going in. @raffi, I spoke with > > you at the CU recruiting event a few weeks back and I got to tell you > > that if I were asked I would tell those kids to reconsider working at > > twitter and possibly consider a Twitter competitor. you say "building > > clients is ... Thinking too small" I would say your policy change is > > thinking small and alienating your ardent supporters. > > > > To which I would add, what is Twitter to arbitrate that which is and > is not "too small?" Has Twitter subscribed to the fallacious "bigger > is always better" philosophy? > > How small is too small? > > Less than $25 million in startup funds? > > OR > > One creative, fun loving person and their sweat equity? > > -- > Twitter developer documentation and resources: http://dev.twitter.com/doc > API updates via Twitter: http://twitter.com/twitterapi > Issues/Enhancements Tracker: > http://code.google.com/p/twitter-api/issues/list > Change your membership to this group: > http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk > -- Raffi Krikorian Twitter, Application Services http://twitter.com/raffi -- Twitter developer documentation and resources: http://dev.twitter.com/doc API updates via Twitter: http://twitter.com/twitterapi Issues/Enhancements Tracker: http://code.google.com/p/twitter-api/issues/list Change your membership to this group: http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk