Altair had a business model figured out. Twitter do not. They've sacrificed most of the potential business models in favor of growth. A massive gamble IMHO.
Microsoft and Dell had a business model. They sold stuff.
Vidly also have a number of free competitors, Microsoft did not at the time.
Maybe they have far bigger plans than just "HD video for twitter". If so, it'd be good to know, and if they turn out to be cool, then great - I'll be first to congratulate them :)
>> "you're like someone making fun of Dell when it was just Michael Dell assembling computers"
Again, the comparison isn't good IMHO. People pay money to purchase computers. There's an obvious business model there.
People currently don't pay to upload videos. The potential business model is far harder to see. Couple that with making it "for twitter!" and for me, it looks like a bubble - startups funded to make features to be acquired by another startup. Endless cycle of investor money being pumped in until something explodes.
Again, FWIW I wasn't making fun of. But IMHO vidly should rise above the "We're X for twitter". Hopefully they will.
-Twitter doesn't have a business model. OK. So twitter has a better chance of going out of business, maybe, then a company with a business model. Are you saying there is no chance twitter will be around in 5 years time? No? then what is the point of that objection. Who care what Twitter's business model is. You only care about it inasmuch as it affects the stability of Twitter as a platform.
-Vidly has free competitors Are you applying this as a general rule? Anyone in a type of business where there are free competitors is disqualified?
Sure there are obstacles. The chances of any little company of getting massive are tiny almost by definition. But you haven't put forward anything disqualifying, which is what you are implying.
Google didn't have a business model either. People thought they were crazy for keeping ads off their homepage, as was common practice at Yahoo, AltaVista, etc.
Microsoft and Dell had a business model. They sold stuff.
Vidly also have a number of free competitors, Microsoft did not at the time.
Maybe they have far bigger plans than just "HD video for twitter". If so, it'd be good to know, and if they turn out to be cool, then great - I'll be first to congratulate them :)
>> "you're like someone making fun of Dell when it was just Michael Dell assembling computers"
Again, the comparison isn't good IMHO. People pay money to purchase computers. There's an obvious business model there.
People currently don't pay to upload videos. The potential business model is far harder to see. Couple that with making it "for twitter!" and for me, it looks like a bubble - startups funded to make features to be acquired by another startup. Endless cycle of investor money being pumped in until something explodes.
Again, FWIW I wasn't making fun of. But IMHO vidly should rise above the "We're X for twitter". Hopefully they will.