4 ms·

[2005]

• jacquesm 17y ago
  Who cares, it's great stuff. That's one of the few times that such a 10 items list actually was worth reading, most of the time they are not worth the bits they're stored on.
  • thiele 17y ago
    Agreed. I can't remember the last "10 Things" list that was this worthwhile. I didn't even realize it was written by Ev until after I read it through.
• paul 17y ago
  Pre-Twitter. In some ways that makes it better in my mind.
  • timr 17y ago
    Yes. There's more opportunity for irony now: "While it's true that traffic is now again actually worth something, the give-everything-away-and-make-it-up-on-volume strategy stamps an expiration date on your company's ass....design something to charge for into your product and start taking money within 6 months (and do it with PayPal)." also fun: "Acquisitions are much easier if they're small. And small acquisitions are possible if valuations are kept low from the get go." Ahem....what's Twitter up to now? $1 billion? Hope they get that paypal feature launched soon...
    • aaronblohowiak 17y ago
      I dont "get" Twitter. Not in any way that I'd put money on, at least. Selling people a product is much more predictable than playing the attention economy game, let alone creating a social network. While he is riding the Twitter growth for now, it is not apparent to me that it is something he should bank on.
    • deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    • waterlesscloud 17y ago
      I can't imagine Twitter is looking to be acquired.
    • jayliew 17y ago
      You know, I don't think I fully understood that one part. A small valuation is in the interest of the acquirer, but a bigger valuation is in the interest of the startup-to-be-acquired, no? (of course, not too large to the extent that they become too expensive and thus kill the deal) So it's an optimization problem - you want it to be as big as possible for the startup folks to win $, but small enough that it's easy for the acquirer to justify