Twitter has a lot of options, but I'm not sure they need to reinvent the revenue model for their system. I readily agree with MicahWedemeyer that donation revenue models are best for smaller enterprises and aren't likely to return on Twitter's VC investment dollars.
That said, what's wrong with unobtrusive adwords? Or dare I even suggest location-based ads? I know several companies have tried the whole geo-location social networking thing and failed, but perhaps Twitter has enough traction that something like that would be relevant and productive for users.
I'm no expert on the current financial crisis, but I did study economics in undergrad and this seems fairly accurate. Maybe I'm just too desperate for good news. Is there anyone on HN that could shed some light on the objective accuracy of this article?
I agree with dazzawazza, the fear of being "that guy" that tries really hard only to fail spectacularly is hard to avoid. Honestly, in my work I have found that working hard and being diligent often produces "lucky" circumstances. I hate that old saying about challenges being opportunities in disguise, but so far it's proven true for me.
I read an article a while back on YC about the virtue of failing spectacularly. I couldn't find it searchyc.com (maybe someone else can find it?), but the gist was that it's far more noble to try your hardest and fail in as grandiose way as possible. I like that idea because it seems more alive and pure, but I certainly hope my startup doesn't end up like that. :)
I couldn't get a handle on what assets were falling away from the Icelandic banks. The article says that they weren't mixed up in the now toxic subprime assets, so is it just the credit crunch that is inhibiting Iceland banks from making short run payments, or are their assets crumbling in other ways? Anyone care to explain?
When I was in school taking econ courses every day I was always so informed about this stuff. I feel so ignorant now!
Very mature product, I was impressed. Some of the things I noticed:
1) This many sound stupid, but I couldn't for the life of me figure out what the logo was (is it a button?). That's probably just me though.
2) I agree with zhyder that it would be best if you don't show games that have no sellers. The whole offering a price to a seller was a little weird for me.
3) You have an impressive amount of games on the site, and the homepage banner (the guy holding the wiimotes) is very good. Anyone just dropping by gets the feeling that the site is very active, and that's great.
4) How does the 100% guarantee affect the company's bottom line? As a potential buyer I think "Great!" but as an entrepreneur I think "uh oh." How does that work out?
Again, excellent site. My brother's a huge gamer, and I'll tell him to check it out the next time he's looking to buy the next title.
Am I missing something?