4 ms·

Thanks for your nomination? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startup_company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startup_company Regardless of your apparent misunde

Thanks for your nomination? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startup_company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startup_company Regardless of your apparent misunderstanding of what qualifies as a startup, Twitter, in fact, does have a dollar in revenue. Their Japanese version, which also launched this year, serves advertisements. :D “It’s like the stupidest question in the world: How’s Twitter going to make money?," said Union Square Ventures’ Fred Wilson, another investor. "It’s like 'How was Google going to make money?' http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/10/twitter-to-get.html http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/10/twitter-to-get.html

jonknee 18y ago
It's not so much that they have no revenue it's that they have no plan for revenue. While they may turn into a great business at some point, they aren't one now. Google's creation of AdWords is not an excuse to fund other ventures who have no idea how to make money. There's not an AdWords for every business. Again, Twitter may become the next Google but that does not mean they are currently one of the most successful start ups. SpaceX inks a multi-billion dollar contract and we're busy talking about how successful Twitter is.
- jfornear 18y ago
  I see what you mean. I am measuring startup success in potential revenue. I think a startup ceases to be a startup when it becomes a profitable business. Also, I wouldn't consider SpaceX to be in the same boat as Twitter, and I assumed we were talking web startups since the Cuil controversy started this. If we were talking tech in general, I agree, something like SpaceX would be preferable over Twitter any day.