What Twitter and the NYT have in common

  Reading this survey of Twitter's QuickBar, and having read a dozen articles about the Times paywall (and written one of my own), there was something eerily familiar about the QuickBar story. Didn't take long to figure it out.
  Neither company has a way to sustain itself finanically.
  Not only that, they don't have any ideas.
  The difference between the Times and Twitter is that we've known that about the Times for a long time, and only suspected it about Twitter.
  I think it's pretty unfortunate that these companies are taking chances with the parts of their systems that work to cover up for the fact that they have no clue how to be a business in their respective futures.
  Funny thing is, they're like ships passing in the night. Each is the solution to the others' problem. :-)
  BTW, one obvious idea for Twitter to make money that I've not heard discussed is simply let us pay to ease up from the 140-character limit. Let's say the new limit is 256 characters, but you have to pay $2 per year per character. So if you can only afford $50, your limit will be 165 characters. To go all the way to the max would be 2 * (256 - 140) or $232. I bet NPR would kill to have such a premium to offer.