91–95 of 95 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Third, actually: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1290390-nba-and-nhl-get-t...
That's an absurd report considering that NBA/NHL arenas hold about 18-20k people max while most MLS games are played in Football stadiums that can hold 65k+. The fact that MLS still barely wins in attendance per game is pretty sad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an absurd report considering that NBA/NHL arenas hold about 18-20k people max while most MLS games are played in Football stadiums that can hold 65k+. The fact that MLS still barely wins in attendance per game is pretty sad.
And that TV audience for NHL is 20x MLS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Re: "how do you know how much money it takes ..." I don't know how much it takes Twitter (even though it should be relatively easy to find out), but I do have an idea how much it should take. Twitter presentations suggest 70 million messages per day. 800 tweets per second: http://www.slideshare.net/raffikrikorian/twitter-by-the-numb... It's not that much, actually. Some of us have processed 50-70 million transactions…
The reason for the mismatch is that it's not 70 million transactions a day. It's potentially 70 million times the average number of people that access each tweet, which is probably more like 100+, plus all the polling that twitter applications do even when there are no new tweets, as well as all the ancillary stuff that's required to run something like this (spam filtering, API servers, etc).
I'm sorry. I really am. I know this isn't Reddit. But...
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
Yes. Yes, on average, a given tweet reaches ONE HUNDRED PEOPLE. Do any of you folks even listen to yourself? Even if you change that to "users" instead of "people," since so many twitter accounts are robots - even then, 100 users on average for every tweet is ABSURD.
> the polling that twitter applications do even when there are no new tweets
Polling with no new tweets is far easier to optimize than polling when there are tweets. So just discount this almost entirely in your roughshod analysis.
> spam filtering
Have you been on twitter? We all get spam and see fake accounts trying to get at us regularly. Try mentioning you're on a diet on twitter and see how many followers you rack up. If they're filtering spam, they're not filtering it well, so I hope they aren't burning too much cash on it.
> API servers
API servers are frontends that use dramatically fewer resources than the work the backends have to do. If Twitter's frontends are costing them much money, again, they're wasting money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Twitter went through severe growing pains to reach the point where it could handle that much traffic; there's no reason to believe App.net won't have to go through similar issues if/as it grows. Actually, there is: app.net could just observe what twitter did. And twitter didn't have to go through it either; There's discussions going on about that since 2008 when their uptime suffered outage after outage; here's som…
If you think you could have replicated Twitter with 300K of hardware and software 2 years ago, surely it would be even cheaper now. Why wouldn't you go to Twitter and offer to do it for them? Even if they paid you three million dollars it would give them massive savings in headcount and operational costs.
But ... the real question, is even if I brought it in a turn-key and backward compatible setup for them (that is, they pay $3M, I install stuff, we flick a switch, and everything just works) - would it be worth $3M to them?
I suspect the answer is: Not worth any kind of risk or hassle to save $10M/year (or however much it would save them; if it is more than $10M/year, I'd be surprised).
I don't know how they spend their money, but I'm willing to bet that running the service is less than 10% of their expenses. (Of the money spent to get e.g. win95, or a new drug, to market, r&d costs are usually no more than 5-10%)
I think Twitter hasn't been a lean organization in years, and they took too much money to "reboot" themselves as a lean.
I think Twitter is already dead, it just won't acknowledge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason for the mismatch is that it's not 70 million transactions a day. It's potentially 70 million times the average number of people that access each tweet, which is probably more like 100+, plus all the polling that twitter applications do even when there are no new tweets, as well as all the ancillary stuff that's required to run something like this (spam filtering, API servers, etc).
> the average number of people that access each tweet, which is probably more like 100+ I'm sorry. I really am. I know this isn't Reddit. But... HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA Yes. Yes, on average , a given tweet reaches ONE HUNDRED PEOPLE. Do any of you folks even listen to yourself? Even if you change that to "users" instead of "people," since so many twitter accounts are robots - even then,…
My point was that the grandparent was probably an order of magnitude or more off counting 70 million new messages per day as 70 million transactions per day.
I'm not saying they're doing things well, but it's pretty naive to think that you could build Twitter's infrastructure with You think the API is a trivial matter of spinning up some front end machines? From that presentation linked to above, they were getting 6 Billion API calls per day, or 70k/sec.
Besides that, all of these numbers are 2 years old, and according to those slides, they were growing at about 10x per year. It has probably slowed, but those numbers may all be much bigger now.