<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress.com" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>boston-web &amp;laquo; WordPress.com Tag Feed</title>
	<link>http://en.wordpress.com/tag/boston-web/</link>
	<description>Feed of posts on WordPress.com tagged "boston-web"</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:38:20 +0000</pubDate>

	<generator>http://en.wordpress.com/tags/</generator>
	<language>en</language>

<item>
<title><![CDATA[Internet Ideas]]></title>
<link>http://tomokeefe.com/2008/06/12/internet-ideas/</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:37:03 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>BostonTweet</dc:creator>
<guid>http://tomokeefe.com/2008/06/12/internet-ideas/</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Everyone has an idea but how we execute that idea is often more valuable than the idea itself. Many ]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class='snap_preview'><p>Everyone has an idea but how we execute that idea is often more valuable than the idea itself.   Many ideas are not unique.  The uniqueness comes about in the individual&#8217;s perception (and execution) of that idea.  Facebook was not a unique idea, however it was executed at a perfect time and at a perfect place.  In Facebook&#8217;s case simple was better.  The web has given simple ideas a platform where they can shine.  Experience definitely helps, however a unique solution to a common problem  become great ideas.</p>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Twitter Costs]]></title>
<link>http://tomokeefe.com/2008/06/12/twitter/</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:10:19 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>BostonTweet</dc:creator>
<guid>http://tomokeefe.com/2008/06/12/twitter/</guid>
<description><![CDATA[There has been a lot of talk lately about Twitter and Twitter&#8217;s revenue model, or their lack o]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class='snap_preview'><p><a rel="attachment wp-att-294" href="http://tomokeefe.com/2008/06/12/twitter/picture-16/"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-294" src="http://seobr.wordpress.com/files/2008/06/picture-16.png" alt="Twitter Revenues, Costs, &#38; Earnings" width="275" height="322" /></a>There has been a lot of talk lately about Twitter and <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/the_ultimate_twitter_revenue_model.php">Twitter&#8217;s revenue model</a>, or their lack of one.  With almost 2 million users Twitter has become a phenomenon (one that I don&#8217;t understand) but also one that&#8217;s plagued by server failures and downtime.</p>
<p>At the end of May Twitter secured a <a href="http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-twitter-closing-its-15-million-roun-with-twitter-bit-less-than-100m-val/">$15 million investment</a> from Boston based Spark Capital.  This capital infusion will surely be used to limit downtime and create some revenues &#8211; something even a phenomenon needs.  Considering that Twitter loses money for every visitor to the site they need to <a href="http://www.bizak.com">monetize</a> this application quickly.  The very conservative estimate (via <a title="Business Valuation" href="http://www.bizak.com/calculate">Bizak Calculator</a>) computes Twitter loses $0.03 for every visitor &#8211; that&#8217;s based on a very low $50,000 /month server costs.  Costs and loses are more likely double that!</p>
<p>Obviously the Bizak Calculator doesn&#8217;t add in the phenom factor when computing valuations!</p>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
