Apologies if it was taken that way. FWIW The vidly website looks cool. I just can't see why people will switch from youtube.

I simply can't fathom how this can end in a good way:

  startup = {name:"twitter"};

  while(true) {
      if (startup.isHyped()) {
          startup.getMoreFunding();    // People invest in things that have hype

          // Others see it as good idea to build something based on it!
          var newStartup = {feature:["search","share video","share numbers","twitter porn","twitter lolcats"]};
          // newStartup implements the feature

          // Child hypes up the parent some more
          startup.hype += newStartup.hype;

          startup.acquire(newStartup);  // When you're 100% reliant on the parent, where else can you go :/
      }
  }

I just can't see how the loop can end with anything other than an OutOfFundingException.

I certainly wasn't trying to insult Vidly, more try and understand the rationale for such a startup existing. As I say, if it's facebook, being able to share video is just an extra feature they add. Like 'search' and handling urls properly. Why so different for twitter? Why must there be a startup dedicated to searching tweets, that twitter acquire? Can't they search their own data? Why does another company need to do url shortening?

As an exit, surely if you build on something else, you really limit your chances of being acquired to that parent. And if the parent is just funded by investors and not revenue... :/ Just seems flakey to me.

Do you think vidly can be profitable? Isn't it pretty risky building on twitter? What if twitter blow up? Do you expect any other potential exit other than twitter acquiring them with their own funding?