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

Reply via email to