What separates 37signals and Twitter?

One sells a collaborative business contact manager, a project tracker, and a personal information manager based on a popular web framework they created. They have a small number of employees, strong revenues, no funding, and apparently consistent operating profits. Their customer base is early-adopter small/medium business.

The other operates an extraordinarily popular social micro-publishing platform featured heavily in the mainstream media, which by capturing the attention of tens of millions of people has demonstrated enough potential long-term value to attract tens of millions of dollars of venture funding. It is staffed accordingly, and is pre-revenue.

One might succeed with a high-8-figures acquisition, or by operating for 10 more years and distributing 6-7 figure bonuses to key employees. The other might succeed with an 8-9 figure acquisition, or an IPO. Either strategy will make the company's key employees and their offspring financially secure.

Both have better-than-average chances at long-term success. Neither is a sure thing. One is more conservative than the other. The other has a higher upside.

Or, I'm sorry, were we talking about blogging personalities?

One creates their own linkbait, the other their users do it for them.

I RTFA and it seems the author is confused. The announcement 3 years ago was that Jeff invested in them, that's all. And like Amazon, 37Signals is pretty traditional and I see no indication of some "big idea" on the horizon, other than the big idea of running a profitable/growing/thriving business.

There's also no meat to the article, just a "hey what's up with that?" comment in regards to over-valued web companies and 37signals strong conviction to staying ... real.

99 billion?

a business plan?

being profitable?

number of users?

- * the better question is what doesn't (would be a smaller list)..

Twitter still needs to pick up an overly-opinionated metrosexual nordic hacker.