Software Dev

Why is Apple Building “Yahoo Directories for Mobile”?

Feb 29

In the early days of the App Store, search wasn’t really that important. With relatively few apps (and very few good apps), the directory/browse experience was ideal. For those of you who were around/pubescent during dotcom #1, that might remind you of a nimble upstart at the time– Yahoo. They proposed to categorize and organize all of the worthwhile content on the internet and did a truly outstanding job– for a while. Eventually, the web got too big and Yahoo Directory collapsed under it.

Enter: Apple. Proposing to categorize and organize all of the world’s apps. You can see the cracks forming. So what will Google do?

Mark my words, Google will onebox mobile app results. Hell, it might (should?) add an “Apps” vertical. If it did, it’d almost instant eclipse the App store in importance for most developers.

I know, I know. It’s a bold prediction. Hear me out.

Google has been working on search innovation for a decade and they’re getting damn good at ferreting out intent from your search queries. In recent years, they’ve done what’s called oneboxing. If they can confidently guess what information you want (or at least what search vertical you’re interested in), they tack it onto the top of the search results. You’ve seen it thousands of time now. Search for “weather seattle”, a stock ticker symbol like AAPL, or append the word “video” to any search. Despite their brutal campaign against the folks in the world of SEO, Google is still better at search than anybody.

If you’re searching in a mobile browser for “Angry Birds”, there’s a pretty good chance that you’re looking to download it– and Google can trivially know what platform you’re searching on and which version might be best for you. If you search for “currency converter” from your mobile phone are you well-served with a JavaScript-driven converter on an ad-infested web page (or worse yet, a non-functioning Flash/Java applet)? Or would you be better served with a link to the best native app for the job?

You’re probably as disgusted with App Store search as I am– it’s fine for brand searches (like “Angry Birds”) but painfully bad for category searches. The App Store is using ridiculous algorithms, forcing developers to stuff keywords into titles and giving us the equivalent of meta-keywords to help our cause. Hell, the App Store even uses the developer’s company name as a meaningful factor (congratulations, Currency Converter, Inc., your shot at ranking for that search term just went up!).

What it should do (which would require a Google-sized index of the web) is the same thing that Google does– rank based on number of links (to the app store page), the quality of those links, and the anchor text used for those links. It could also layer in social data, ratings, active usage data, and other things that only Apple has at their fingertips. But they probably won’t– Apple is not a search company.

But Google is. They could be a better way to find/buy apps almost overnight. And it’d be a huge boon to app developers for all platforms.

The Rub

The big problem here, of course, is that Google will be helping Apple sell more apps (at least when people are viewing onebox results on an iPhone). And Apple will still be hauling in their rapacious 30% (a fair fee if Apple is bringing the customer to the table– less so if all they are doing is handling the purchase/update process). So even if Google includes a paid spot or two in their onebox, is there enough revenue room for Google make a buck? With game developers paying $3-5 per install on the marketing front, I think so. Outside of games, it’s a little less clear.

So what do you think. Will Google do this? If they do, would it be the right move? If Apple manages to do something productive with their Chomp acquisition, will it matter?

Guide to Evaluating Startup Ideas

May 27

A great developer I once worked with was kvetching at lunch one day. He’d been working at a well-funded startup for about a year and had come to terms with the fact that the startup was really a pretty dumb idea. He’d wasted a year of his life and had a pile of stock options that weren’t very interesting. His last two jobs had been similar. He asked me a question that, at the time, I didn’t have a good answer for. “How can you possibly know when joining a startup if it’s going to be successful?” In other words, how can you spot a good startup idea?

Since I’ve announced that I’m moving on in the coming weeks/months, I’ve been bombarded with cool offers at existing startups, larger companies, and, of course, I’ve been pondering some of my own startup ideas. So his question which I didn’t really consider very carefully at the time is now one that I’m thinking a LOT about.

So without further ado, here is my “checklist for good startup ideas”. No startup will do great on every aspect of the checklist, but this allows me to put startups/products to a sniff test that I think is pretty darn useful. Note, this list is in rough order of importance.

How deeply do you think the startup will effect people’s lives? Can you imagine them using it every day? Can you imagine them being royally pissed if they couldn’t use it? This can range from utility (gmail) to emotion (twitter), but if a product isn’t in the “I’d rather chew off my own arm than lose it” category for a meaningful percentage of it’s users, it should be a non-starter.
Are the hypotheses that form the basis of the startup tractable? In other words, can test the idea(s) in a short period of time? I’ve talked about the importance of tractability before (hat tip, Ev Williams). Bottom line is that most initial hypotheses are wrong to varying degrees. Twitter was very tractable. Tesla is not. I’ll re-use the money quote from Fred Wilson: “…Of the 26 companies that I consider realized or effectively realized in my personal track record, 17 of them made complete transformations or partial transformations of their businesses between the time we invested and the time we sold. That means there a 2/3 chance you’ll have to significantly reinvent your business between the time you take a venture capital investment and when you exit your business.”
How does the cost-of-acquisition, cost-of-goods-sold (COGS) and revenue-per-customer stack up? Most software startup have a pretty low COGS, so this question generally comes down to, “How much does it cost to buy a customer and how much revenue does that customer represent over their life?” This obviously requires a lot of guesswork early on, but experience is a helluva teacher here. If you haven’t been on the wrong side of this ratio a few times, find a mentor who has. Any way you slice it, you need to fine a “scalable, cost-effective way to get your customer’s attention”. I can’t count the number of startups that aimed squarely at small businesses or “prosumers” with sub-$100 price point and have no idea on how they’re going to buy a customer (other than word of mouth, SEM/SEO, and PR).

I love extremes here. Zynga, Twitter, and Facebook has nailed one extreme– their cost of acquisition is free and nearly infinitely scalable. If you can build a service that grows virally (free and growing customer acquisition), you can focus most of your attention on value creation and revenue-per-user. With a little success there and a little time to let the virus spread, and you can almost not help but succeed. I think it’s hard to overestimate the power of free marketing/customer acquisition.

There are certainly extremes on the other side. What do you think Oracle’s revenue per customer is? How much can they afford to “buy” a customer for? What about Groupon?

Pro Tip: If you’re raising angel or Series-A money and you say you’ll be using the proceeds for things like magazine ads and wrappers on busses, you’ve probably already lost.
How MANY lives could you imagine touching in 5 years? This is different than asking about total addressable market (TAM). Craigslist started as a classified ads mailing list for San Francisco. Amazon started selling books. Have some imagination and consider what your company could morph into. Is it interesting enough to justify the opportunity cost and the fact that you’re looking at a drastically reduced salary for 2-5 years?
Is it an invention or re-invention? Hats off to you inventors out there, but I strongly prefer an existing market to creating one from scratch. The companies whose equity I covet didn’t build anything NEW, they just built something BETTER (Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Craigslist, eBay, Zynga etc). In short, the first mover advantage is a crock of shit (most of the time).
Is it worth talking about? Can you tell a story about the product that would make a blogger say, “Holy crap– I could write a story around that that would get tons of links, tweets, and comments?” One of my favorite products is Visual Website Optimizer (it’s a brilliant A/B testing tool). The founder (a great product designer who I’ve had a few conversations with) sent out a barrage of emails to major tech bloggers and heard nothing but crickets (he appealed to Hacker News readers for advice– I think the discussion is interesting). His fundamental problem is that he doesn’t have a story that will drive links/tweets/comments/pageviews– all of the metrics that pro-bloggers care about. Oftentimes, clever PR people can create a story out of something that has nothing to do with the product (see: 37Signals & Zappos), but it certainly helps a lot if your product is funny, controversial, unusually useful, or inherently exhibitionist.

Are you passionate about the end-game? This one is hard to rank. All of the points above assume you are a “mercenary” founder (maximizing for opportunity) rather than a “missionary” founder (passionate about a vision that keeps you awake at night). Great video on that point here. Regardless of whether your end game is a vision realized or a big pile of cash (or some combination thereof), you need to be passionate about it… You need to have something that powers you through the bumps in the road where a rational person would cut and run. Both motivations are dangerous, by the way. If you’re motivated by cash, you might have a hard time sticking through tough times when you realize what you’ve built might only be a single or a double. If you’re motivated by vision, you might not like the pivots your startup needs to take to survive/succeed.
Is the market moving in the right direction? Can you imagine there being a LOT of growth and consolidation in the next 5-10 years? I just saw my first RedBox the other day (it’s a cool box outside of supermarkets that allow you to rent DVDs). They are currently on the wrong side of a market shift away from physical media– can you imagine people renting DVDs in 10 years? I think this one is particularly hard to get right (which is why it’s low on the list).

That’s my list. Am I missing something that’s on yours?

A Designer in Support of Design Contests

Apr 01

15 years ago, you couldn’t even BEGIN to look for a house without a real estate agent (who takes 6-7% of the purchase price from the buyer). Today, the internet has changed that. 10 years ago, someone starting a small business had to eat a cost of thousands of dollars to get a solid looking logo– often more if they didn’t want to roll the dice on just using a solo designer (of if their first designer didn’t create something that they loved). Today, a small business can get dozens of designers working in a public forum for $500. I think that’s AWESOME. But like real estate, there are casualties. And, like real estate, there is anger. But to me, “transactional design” (the kind of design that can take a few hours to net a good product and doesn’t require a lot of consultation) is an inevitable casualty of the global economy and the evolution of the internet (see 99Designs).

It’s a Global Village Now

I was in India for 3 weeks last year and was STUNNED at the cost of labor. We rode in taxis for the entire trip and spent less on them than the 1 way trip home from the airport in Seattle. Talented tailors would throw in manpower of tailoring a shirt if you just bought the cloth. If it’s unfair to pay $500 for a logo, was it unfair for me to pay Indian market rates for a taxi ride (usually less than a buck or two)?

The $300 bounty for a winning logo design is a kings ransom for a young designer in most of India (and the rest of the world). Guess what, Western world? You’ve got to compete– and Walmart has taught us over and over again that consumers aren’t going to pay 10% more (much less the 1000% more that an onshore hourly designer would cost) just so they can feel good. Some of them will- but most of them won’t. We can’t put the genie back in the bottle here. You’re better off trying to find creative ways to compete than bemoaning the unfairness of it all– it’s like a cottage seamstress complaining about the existence of the new textile factory down the road– technology changes markets.

For a rural Indian designer, entering 10 contests per week and winning one for $500 might be a huge win (and he doesn’t have to write a single proposal!). And that designer might be damned talented. How different is this than a services business investing $500k in sales effort on 10 different $10m RFPs and ultimately winning one? In fact, isn’t this just a different sales investment/risk than costly networking, proposal writing, advertising, etc., etc? Heck, the designer doesn’t even have to issue a Net-30 invoice– 99Designs drops the money to the winner pretty instantly.

So I’m assuming that the gripe with design contests isn’t that people are getting paid LESS than they used to, but rather that they could get paid NOTHING even after expending the time and effort of producing a logo. Which brings me to my next point:

Whether you are a Business or Freelancer – getting paid requires that you risk time and money.

If you want paying work without spending time/money or taking risks, you should go find a job with a paycheck.

My first business (a technology consultancy) was CONSTANTLY investing staggering amounts of money and time to get customers…. We had sales guys, who made healthy base salaries and some commissions. We went to networking events to establish relationships with people who could be customers someday. We took existing clients to lunch to chat about projects on the horizon. We sent out custom holiday cards to every client every year to keep us visible. We built and maintained a web site with a rich and updated portfolio. We had snazzy business cards that had to be kept up to date. We had really nice business clothes for the clients that cared about such things. We cooked up gorgeous custom proposal documents for customers– and these proposals required considerable analysis work and consultation with the customer (spec work!). We even responded to RFPs sometimes (rarely). All of these efforts can come up empty, of course. Many of them did, but in aggregate, my business grew like gangbusters. Software is no different. I heard that Salesforce.com spends 60-70% of their topline on sales/marketing. Much of that is probably wasted, but I’m sure they are in a constant state of making their marketing spend more efficient (just like 99Design entrants are probably in a constant state of gauging the kinds of contests that will net them the most bang for their effort).

In short, getting paying work cost TONS of time, money, and risks (how many freelancers do you know who average 100% billability in a 40 hour work week over a year?).

If you are a fresh-off-the-boat designer (or a rural one), you should expect your costs and risk here to be higher than if you’re not. You’ll have to invest more and get less as you build up relationships, your skills, and a portfolio. If there are too many designers eager for work (as I believe there are right now– the design world is NOT growing as fast as were churning out design grads), the market is going to make this harder for you. Don’t like markets? Get a paycheck-job or go learn Ruby on Rails (then you can fall out of bed and land on 2-3 lucrative freelance offers).

The nature of design

The best work general comes from seasoned professionals who engage in a deep discovery process, run through a lot of iterations, and work closely with the client. That being said, you can see flashes of brilliance without all of this, especially in the world of “transactional design”. Some of the stuff on 99Designs is GOOD. For a logo, book cover, or smallish web site design (especially for a smallish business) the difference in value received between a $30,000 engagement and a $500 contest is not worth $29,500. In fact, the contest might (on some occasions) yield better results faster. Even if it doesn’t, it’s CERTAINLY faster and can help with brainstorming. From a purely economic point of view, rolling the dice with a contest is a quick experiment to run that might yield exceptional results. I could design a good from-the-hip book cover in a few hours and it MIGHT be great… Design can be random and certain design tasks are 90% inspiration and 10% perspiration rather than the inverse. The bigger the design project, the less this is true, obviously. Again, I think logos (for small businesses) is the sweet spot.

Supply & Demand

As a business, we try to be as fair as possible with vendors, but we’re in business to be profitable. If I look at the winning designs on 99Designs and I generally like them more as much as any designer’s portfolio, is eschewing the cheaper option really the way to go? Paying bottom dollar prices CAN mean that someone somewhere is being exploited. I’ve seen no evidence that the 99Designs designers are exploited however, though it’s obvious that there are designers with higher costs of living in the US who simply can’t compete on transactional design services.

If you answered “yes, as a matter of principal” to the last question, how do you feel about internships (unpaid or crappy pay)? How do you feel about buying sneakers that were made in a Chinese factory with awful working conditions (check your feet, please)? How do you feel about the fact that the average Google employee generates over $1m per year in revenue but gets paid less than 10% of that #? Shopping for the best dollar-to-value ratio generally means that someone gets a disproportionate cut of the wealth in the transaction (even just a little bit)… Though are Google employees really getting screwed? Is an Indian designer getting screwed if she’s pulling down $20k year on 99Designs? And where is the outrage about things like iStockPhoto? Or 99Designs’ Logo Store? Is responding to a clear need in a design contests for a speculative chance at pay really that different from a photographer tossing up a speculative photo on iStockPhoto and hoping that someone might eventually buy it? The ones that have great photos make a ton of money. The ones that suck probably need to take photography classes. Heck, is it really that much different from my startup, where I spent a big (expensive) chunk of my live to launch something hoping that someone would want to buy it? Isn’t a startup in the “spec-work” category?

Design contests are a meritocracy in the extreme– good designers can probably make good money and (with a track record of winning and a great portfolio), eventually graduating to less-speculative lead generation if they so desire (though I bet GREAT designers could net thousands a day on 99Designs). Bad ones don’t and have to seek other marketing avenues or other lines of work. Again, welcome to business. Given the huge number of designers that enter contests OVER AND OVER again, clearly many have decided that they’d rather roll those dice than roll the dice associated with RFPs, Adwords, hiring salesfolks and other lead-generation efforts.

These are just some thoughts. As a designer, I’ve never done spec work (unless proposals count– they probably should). As a business, I’ve never asked for it… But from either side of the table, I’m not sure I have an ethical problem with it. So from one (admittedly kinda mediocre) designer to the rest of you– how are design contests “damaging” designers beyond the way that Google News is “damaging” newspapers?

Twitter isn’t a Social Network

Dec 29

One of my biggest frustrations with Twitter is that it’s a pretty clumsy mechanism for 2-way conversation (IM style) as well as “one and a half way” conversation (commenting on a tweet that may or may not elicit discussion). I posted a tweet the other day to see what other people think:

I quickly got two responses from two people whose opinion I really respect (@sacca and @andrewchen).

@Sacca’s Response: “@webwright Speaking for myself, it seems like that could induce some lame behavior in asymmetric networks.”

@andrewchen’s response “@webwright inline replies work best in 2-way friending environments. Otherwise ppl you don’t follow show up in your main feed”

I found myself vehemently disagreeing with them, so I figured I’d blog through it as an product design exercise. Disclaimer note: armchair quarterbacking is easy. The Twitter team (note: @sacca is an investor/advisor) has more brain cells and a helluva lot more time invested in designing Twitter than I do– I have no illusions that a little rumination over Christmas makes me smarter than they are. I also know that there are (were?) some technical hurdles. For a while, Twitter wasn’t TOO good at understanding when an @ tweet was actually a reply, and which tweet it was replying to. Still the case, or no?

So here are some ideas for your consideration. I’d love to hear what folks think in the (delightfully threaded) comments.

1. Twitter would do better to think about their site as a content/microblog network than as a social network.

This is my fundamental disagreement with Andrew and Chris’s response. They’re thinking of Twitter like a social network with asynchronous/2-way friending (maybe it’s because the media is constantly comparing them to Facebook?). It isn’t, IMO. In fact, I think Twitter would have more success if they acted more like WordPress.com (or LiveJournal?) than like Facebook. Twitter followers aren’t friends. They are subscribers. The people you follow aren’t people you know– they are microblogs that you find interesting. Twitter is a fabulous distillation of blogs and an RSS reader all rolled into one. It’s 10x easier than blogging. Following is 10x easier than subscribing via RSS (and following is a lot more grok-able than RSS to begin with). But they’ve crippled/marginalized one of the key features that make blogging so damn sticky (for bloggers and readers)– comments and discussion.

2. The problems of Chris, Andrew and (to a hugely lesser degree!) me are not the problems that most Twitter users (or bloggers) have.

To many/most Twits/bloggers, they are doing it because they want to be heard. I remember when I first started blogging what an absolute rush it was to get a comment on my blog. Heck, it still is. Similarly, I confess to checking my @replies fairly often. Is anyone listening? Did my breathtakingly insightful/amusing tweets result in anyone replying or retweeting? I think this changes when you get to the follower count that some celebrities enjoy (Chris, who mentioned above that inline comments might result in too much noise, has ~1.3 million followers). Similarly, there are some pretty famous examples of prominent bloggers shutting OFF comments… They’ve transcended the “I just want to be heard” problem of most twits/bloggers and have graduated to the “holy crap, discussion is a nightmare to manage/moderate” problem. My guess is that the higher up you get at Twitter, the less the product managers empathize with people who have less than 100 followers, who often feel like they are talking to an empty room.

3. Regardless of whether you want Twitter to be a social network instead of a content/broadcast network, it’s more VALUABLE as a content network.

First of all, look at Twitter’s big pile of 4th quarter revenue (high five, Twitter!). That’s for content. That content would be more valuable if it was richer. Let’s take Paul Kredosky’s “Dishwasher” scenerio, discussed on Fred Wilson’s blog. He’s looking for a dishwasher and finds that Google’s organic search results are lousy. I empathize– after a 6 month home remodeling effort, I am aghast at how bad Google is once you move outside the realm of the “linkerati“). Paul searches for a dishwasher, and now that Twitter content is featured in Google results, he sees a tweet that says, “Just got a new Bosch ScrubGunner Dishwasher installed today. Amazing!” That tweet would be way more useful if it also had associated with it the three @replies that said stuff like “The ScrubGunner starts off strong, but has a record of exploding about 3 months after you buy it”. Added bonus– this would make Twitter’s permalink pages quite a bit richer in terms of indexable content, which would increase traffic dramatically. Permalink pages with lots of comments could actually be VALUABLE pages.

Even taking the search deals out of the equation, Twitter is a consumer web service and its stock and trade are things like pageviews, # of tweets, retention cohorts, return visits per day, etc. In short, it wants lots of addicted users using it a LOT. Nothing does this better than conversation and Twitter is lousy at conversation. There are very few emails I open more reliably than the Disqus comment notifications for my blog, the WordPress.com notifications for the RescueTime Blog, or Facebook telling me that someone has responded to one of my status updates. Further, nothing brings me BACK to a blog like a reply to my reply. Take a look at Fred Wilson and Neil Patel– they pretty religiously reply to every commenter on their site and it generates return visits, more (valuable) content, and happier “customers”.

In short, if Twitter made conversation easier and noisier, it’d help engagement, retention, and growth (or that’s my guess anyways). New users would graduate from the “empty room” feeling quicker.

4. To keep things simpler, they should consider punting retweets for replies/comments.

Retweets are interesting and certainly help Twitter and API-wranglers understand the value/popularity of a tweet. But they don’t feed the core need that Twitter is filling for most twits… To feel HEARD. Further, the retweet feature is simply too smart and assumes too much understanding of how Twitter works. I’d wager that if you took 10 “newborn” Twitter users and asked them to explain retweets, you’d get a fair bit of confusion (humble hat tip to Twitter though– I can’t imagine retweeting being implemented clearer than it is). Comments/conversations, on the other hand, are as old as the Internet. People grok that right out of the gates.

Beyond just “grokability”, retweets just aren’t as approachable as replies. While Facebook’s “like” feature is the lightest way to endorse a status update, the retweet FEELS heavier. It’s saying, “I like this– and I like it enough to broadcast it to others”. I personally @reply folks about 10x more than I retweet them (and I imagine I’m not alone). If this is true for most people, who not focus on enabling what most of your users are doing more often?

Discussion would also help with user discoverability. @replies are often a source of followers for me (replies to me as well as others when I bother to dive into the clickfest necessary to track a full conversation on Twitter).

5. How I’d implement inline discussion on Twitter.

Obviously, comments/discussion would accelerate the number of tweets dramatically, so I think slamming them all into the main feed might be bad. I’d:

- Add the text “11 replies to this Tweet” as a gray link at the bottom of any applicable Tweet (when shown in a stream) to i
- Add threaded replies on the tweet’s permalink page. So Tweets like THIS ONE would actually be rich/interesting/engaging conversation and clickthrus to tweets from search engines would actually have more meaningful content.
- present @replies that are actually replies to other tweets as part of a conversion. So the “in reply to…” text below reply tweets could be a bit richer/more enticing, like “reply to @username (13 other replies)”.
- Maybe present a “thumbs up” or “like” button (a la facebook) for light endorsements of a tweet (easier and less noisy than “I agree” or “this is awesome” comments). Would this be better than a retweet option?
- Allow people to turn off the above display of @replies if they want.

Twitter is obviously a public IM client/chatroom for some. For others, it’s a microblog broadcast platform. For still others, it may actually be a social network. But I’d contend that serving those first two audiences FIRST (by making conversation easier) would create happier users, gut-punch their early attrition problems, and create a more valuable business. What do you think?

(You should follow @sacca and @andrew_chen and maybe even me on Twitter!)

On Auto-Tweets, Facebook Games, and Other Potential Pollution

Oct 26

I love games. While I did wear a letterman jacket through most of high school, I surreptitiously played Dungeons and Dragons every week with my brother’s gaming group. I’ve played a wide variety of games on every computer I’ve ever owned. I like board games like Settlers of Catan, and (god help me) I even futzed around with Magic: The Gathering.

Like a lot of software folks, I have a secret wish to punt everything, run into the hills, and make GAMES.

So it’s exciting to see this gaming renaissance. Casual games, social games– whatever you want to call them– there are new ways to make money making games and it’s no longer the big budget hit-driven madness that we’ve grown accustomed to.

But boom times like this can be messy and noisy, and this one is no exception. One of the key elements of this new gaming revolution is the potential to be VIRAL. As a developer, it’s fairly trivial to have your game automagically announce itself to a player’s Twitter followers, Facebook friends, whatever. “[friendname] just found a +11 Sword of Evisceration, but he needs your help to consecrate it in the blood of the Celestial Dragon – click here to join [gamename]“. Or, on Twitter, “I’m now the Mayor of Baskin Robbins. Bask in my benevolence! [insert bitly link here].”

The cost of shooting out these messages periodically as a user plays is trivial and there’s only upside, right? If 1,000 users play to that point and they each have 100 followers on Twitter, well– you just got 100,000 free ads for you game, packed with the kind of social proof that advertisers can only dream of.

But, at the end of the day, it’s SPAM. As a developer, they shouldn’t be asking themselves whether the cost/benefit analysis works. Heck, it costs me a billionth of a penny to send an unsolicited email and I’m sure I could craft an email that would convert more than a billionth of the time. WIN! Instead, they should be asking themselves the following questions:

Does the player WANT to tweet about this? If they do, encourage them but let them opt-in every time and do it in their own words.
How many of the players followers gives a rat’s ass? If a game auto-tweets on my account, 99.9% of the people are going to get no value. 99.9% aren’t going to find it interesting. I’m looking at you, Foursquare.
What percentage of the players would, once they realized that they just blasted their friends with this promotional tweet would say, “Ooooh, I didn’t know it’d do that! That’s GREAT that I just told all 1500 of my followers that I’m the Mayor of Hooters!”

Yes, social game makers, your spammer math WORKS. 99.9% of my followers will consider it noise– if they read the tweet, they’ll want their 10 seconds back. But you’ll get your 0.1% clicking the link, and those clickers will convert (some of them). And THEY’LL make noise too and you’ll have your virus.

But because this works so well, we’re going to have more and more of it. If you’d told the first guy that sent an email that 95% of the world’s email would be spam in 2007, I think he’d be pretty horrified. While I tend to like federated models like Email more than walled gardens like Facebook and Twitter, in this case I’m glad there are some sensible folks at the helm who can shut this stuff down (or at least give users the tools to turn the noise down).

For what it’s worth, if I wasn’t in the weird and wonderful world of time management software, I’d be doing social games. Hell, maybe I’d suck at it because I took the high road. But I think I’d just focus on making really fun games, making it MORE fun if people invited friends, and giving them the tools to tell the world should they want to.