Comments on: Twitter co-founders on their business model

CNET News' Ina Fried caught up with Biz Stone and Evan Williams after their speech at D. In a video interview, the pair talked about why they are more interested in building a service than making money.

[Jeff Putz]

I can't be the only one who finds that hilariously 1999. As long as they're running on someone else's money, they're someone's beotch. What happens when the pimp wants his money?

[Len Bullard]

The first question should be 'what is the value of Twitter to a user'? It seems to an inane application that increases the illusion of being in the loop while trivializing the loop itself.

[ca5ter]

Twitter is lame.

[oh4real]

You heard it here first (second, third,???,...): Twitter's biz model is to start requiring smart & mobile phoners to submit content via SMS msg to TWITTR at a fee of $1.99 per ****.

Twitterererers can buy pre-paids in bulk at discount and submit content via SMS to TWITR - a non-fee SMS service.
Any **** originating from the convenience of a mobile (blocked if proxied via one of the ATT, VZW, etc. 3G servers) have to pay for it.

In this model, those "nit" twits who want to conveniently use this lame service from their mobiles, they pay a convenience fee. No advertising model, no invasive marketing - plain ole simple "you want it, you pay for it".

Normal desktop/laptop/wi-fi browser twitting would be free for guests, but charge hosts of twits a monthly service fee to offset the hosting costs.

So that's the model: Twit accounts pay a service fee to cover operating expenses and mobile submitters pay fee to contribute 'on-the-fly' and this is development/cap ex/profit.

Sorry, I don't use the lame service so I don't know the lingo...