My point was that, at least to me, twitter sounded like a stupid idea on paper. I was proven wrong, but there are many ideas just like it that you have to implement to see if it's useful. The phrase "try it and see" comes to mind. That's what many of these side projects are for; and, when you have a TON of money to play with, you can go off and throw a few hundred thousand or million at it and not worry about it. If it turns out to be a good idea, then yay! Victory. If not, oh well, you're still making enough outside of that project to cover everyone.
Well you'll get no disagreement with me that "try it and see" is a good thing and needs to be funded. What the author is saying, and I take as a very insightful point, is that you're unlikely to efficiently find a project's make-or-break point if you're always awash in cash. Time and resources tend to get used if they are available. Research tends to recommend more research. Delivering a self-sustaining product is hard compared to discovering and exploring within a sandbox.
What the "startup" mentality has that the cash cow companies lack is the sink-or-swim pressures that create success or failure from new projects. Market pressures, in other words. Cash cow companies can afford to have many projects in limbo, sucking time and energies away from progressing towards projects that will ultimately succeed.
Because cash cow companies (by their very nature) haven't had to develop many successful projects, they tend not to be very good at it. Not only that, but cash cow company executives often become fearful of any line of development that may undermine the cash cow's market performance. When those two factors coexist, you're left with a company that's not only painted itself into a corner, but has also forgotten how to paint.
BTW, I think Twitter sounded like a simple idea on paper, but certainly not a stupid one. If a small group of people finds a passionate use case, there are likely others out there who will feel the same.
