DISQUS

Digital Millennium Copyright Act
Net Neutrality
Software Patent Reform

are tech related subjects I would ask about.

The bidding activity looks suspicious to me. I doubt any of the bids are legitimate.

As you know I really don't care for the Qik videos (mostly they seem to waste my time) -- but the latest tactic (not sure if it is a new feature or not) where your twitter posts actually include some subject information is an improvement.

But I do agree it is likely possible to get a different kind of video/interview using the cell phone because of its "invisibility". Hopefully the technology of the phones, network will improve so the usefulness of the strategy also improves.

This is all fine as long as the "owner" is plugging in the trenches as well and making similar time, committment and comfort sacrifices.

Lots of startups (and non startups as well) seem to demand long hours nose to the grindstone work of employees while the guys at the top are drawing large salaries, buying fancy cars, travelling first class, living on expenses and generally having a good time at the organization's expense.

If you want others to eat dog food you better be slopping from the same bowl.

Poking around, I see two fundamental technical differences between Pownce and Twitter:

- The development platform Python vs. Ruby
- Twitter supports SMS messaging - Pownce appears to be web only

Either or both could be the cause of Twitter's woes. Or could be its salvation. Neither seems easilty changeable though so if instability stems from there there is no hope. Whether Pownce kills Twitter may be a moot point. It may just collapse under its own instability.

Of course Twitter's problem could just be lack of competent technical resources and leadership. Both those problems are potentially fixable.

Still think the name is not the best choice.

"Air" technology -- all I can think of is vapourware. So I am not sure if this is good marketing.

Then again maybe being associated with Apple is not so bad?

So on another note -- whose signature is on the Telecaster (I am assuming Telecaster)?

All I can think of is Bill and Ted's excellent adventure.

I presume you are hoping to have one ;-).

Except as you know in numerous contacts from your followers (including me)-- your hitting 55 puts a generic message in the Twitter stream with no information to convey the subject of the uploaded video.

What's easy for you but is mostly annoying, repetitive, bordering on spam for your followers.

I notice a number of other people doing this as well, making Twitter much less useful not more in my opinion.

I am hoping you do not promote this mostly useless feature more until it gets a little more friendly at the consuming end.

Kudos.

Great pictures.

As I indicated in my first post my idea for a business to make money is "to generate a consistent revenue stream" (and over the long term spend less than you generate).

If you are an investor in Twitter then making money is getting more money back in your bank account than you invested.

But maybe again my old school idea of a "business model" s getting in the way.

OK -- I guess that changes the conversation tone a little ;-)

Do you agree with my general definition of "making money" or were you thinking of another definition?

I find the West Coast/Silicon Valley definition of "business model" (and maybe "making money") often varies from my probably more traditional view and always feel a little uneasy with the "new economy". "shifting paradigm" view. I think it was wrong in the pre 99 web and and is wrong now (but maybe I am just an old fart too far from the action in time and geography).

When I posted an entry recently musing on Twitter's business model recently (http://radio.weblogs.com/0127028/2007/12/15.htm...) mostly based on thinking about postings/tweets from you btw, I got an interesting anonymous comment:

"The business model is to merge with or be acquired by a company that makes mobile devices and use the service to drive sales of the mobile device. First they have to create a large enough user base that it makes sense to start making a device just for the service. So they make money right now by attracting new users. That's what the investors put the money down for, so you don't have to worry. Their pockets are deep enough so they can afford to keep going for quite some time. "

The comment is interesting for two reasons -- one in it is anonymous, second my blog is very rarely read (except for family/friend based entries or readers) so I am speculating someone who search blogs specifically for Twitter related postings (someone in Twitter maybe?) found it and commented.

I am not sure I agree with your statement that there are "lots of ways" for Twitter to make money. I can see ways for the investors to get back their investment (as the commenter indicated) but not many ways other than something advertising related to generate a consistent revenue stream (isn't that what "making money" traditionally means?)

I really don't understand how Apple can be so bad from a customer service pov and also apparently have such bad hardware (or so it seems from many of the high profile bloggers that have Apple hardware - Scoble, you and many others) and still people keep flocking back and putting down premium money for their products.

Is there some compulsion to be cool that Apple has tapped into? It seems almost like a drug dependency.

It seems that the common tendency to borrow a lexicon from something existing is the root cause of much of this confusion.

Nobody really has 1000 or more "friends" in the tradition sense of the word yet that is the lexicon of Facebook. Having a "follower" or being a "follower" sounds positively creepy like you are about to swallow the Kool Aid or are stalking or being stalked, yet that is Twitter's borrowed lexicon. People that are labelled "evangelists" really gets under my skin as well -- recalling faith tents, faith healers, speaking in "tongues" but it is a title and function that Apple, Guy Kawasaki and others of that era popularized and has stuck.

Somehow it always seems easier to convey a new idea by appropriating an existing lexicon. This is not something new in the English language (or any language for that matter). It always creates some confusion during the crossover phase, maybe not as much as when a completely new lexicon is created though, so I doubt the practice will end.

Tons of duplicates eh?

Welcome to the world of people that subscribe to your shared Google feed.

I guess #2 is a secret? ;-)

So this would imply that Facebook is so compelling that users would pay to use it? Is that really the case?

I guess some people are loose enough with money that they are paying to send "virtual" gifts so maybe there are some people that would pay for membership?

Maybe I am a Luddite or just an old fart but I think both ideas are ludicrous.

"your brother's bar"?

Not totally sure what is going on there but I could not stand to be there for more than 10 seconds.

Maybe you could find someone to help him out with design or have him send me some of what people that can stand more than 10 seconds are smoking.

;-)

I have found most Facebook apps less than useful -- often "cute" but mostly juvenile.

One type of application that I would like to see (not even sure if it would be possible) would be some sort of mashup of Skype (with it's multiparty feature -- including Skype 3rd party applications like whiteboard, application sharing) and scheduled or ad hoc multiparty meetings. Sort of a combination of synchronous social networking (which I think Jeff Pulver is mulling these days) and asynchronous networking (which Facebook seems to have a handle on).

Maybe that is corporately unlikely though -- being that Facebook and Ebay/Skype are somewhat competitors. I am not sure if a third party could even approach something like this.

Did you ask about the pending legal action against them (and their founder/CEO)?

There are some pretty serious allegations (ethical if not legal) it seems.

I am not sure how credible this is but what about this:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/120066/facebook-fac...

Or is it just bound to generate more talk?

I have problems with MP3s and movs as urls in IE7 (works fine in Firefox).

Not sure if the problem is with Apple/Quicktime or Microsoft but this might be what some are seeing (I also cannot play the mp3 url you provided using IE7).

Why would you do this anyway? It seems like a total waste of your time? It's a phone for Christ sake.

Surely you are past wanting be one of the people with the cool phone first? Or even encouraging Patrick to be in that "I am a sheep"
mindset (I suspect he has enough in peer pressure anyway without your involvement)?

I guess maybe you can turn it into a PR event for you and Podtech? Any other reason?