Yeah, I fucked up. Still, could there be a trillion dollars in software sales?

Gates remembers that in 1979 there were only 100 different software products that had more than $100 M in annual sales and all of them were for mainframes. 'In April, the 8080 version of BASIC became the first software product built to run on microprocessors to win an ICP Million Dollar Award. Today, I would be surprised if the number of million-dollar applications isn't in the millions itself' writes Gates.

1,000,000 software applications x $1,000,000 = $1,000,000,000,000 (one quadrillion dollars)

Seems a bit high.

I suppose we're dealing with two different things. It seems like you're looking at Facebook/Twitter only in their ability to make money -- not in their unprecedented way of collecting information, or something like that. At least for Twitter, the centralized aspect IS important. News stories have broken out on Twitter before the AP / Reuters could cover them, for obvious reasons (see the Hudson River plane crash).

Maybe money cannot be made off Twitter itself (which seems just flat out wrong. People still click on banner ads, don't they?) But there is, I feel, a shitload of money to be made off of the trends that Twitter reveals. I'll admit that I'm not so versed in the world of Twitter API and statistics, but it seems like, given the wealth of people currently using the site as well as the mainstream popularity that is current swelling around the site, a lot of good info/stats could be extracted, showing where people gather or how they interact or what types of things they like to talk about. Money can be made off of all these things.

As for Facebook, again, I believe that you use the site (and I'm sorry to come off so harsh in my original post), but I think that you underestimate its use. It's not just for posting thoughts (and when you say that, you make it seem a lot more like Twitter.) I'm a college student - people use it to make events, gather people around causes, etc. People use it for pre-screening possible dates. They show off their music/videos. They share links with each other. Again, the centralized nature seems important: the news feed means everyone sees your newest video or song or event, so that without your own intervention, someone can display something. Multiple blogs require visits to multiple web pages, and this is something that people are less and less willing to do every day.

Am I making sense here?

I'm not sure what you mean by Facebook and Twitter as "dead man walking." Aren't these two of the fastest growing websites (in terms of members) on the internet? (And if you mean "they'll die eventually" then you too are a dead man walking...)

Facebook is just a blog? What the fuck are you talking about? Have you used the website?

How could Twitter be done in "P2P fashion"? Do we all put our tweets in text files and add them to a big torrent?

Some people like thumbing through the paper physically, reading it front to back, that whole process. However, I think in time people are just going to get used to reading it on their computers.

I think that e-ink might be easier on the eyes or something. It might be nice for reading. End post.

What do you mean by "locked down"? Do they check the txt/pdf to see if it's a copyrighted work?