I suspect that most general interest applications could generate revenue eventually with enough cash put in (the exception being fundamentally flawed business models - "let's sell bags of rocks over the internet to children!").

But the curse is that the longer your runway, the more cash you've raised/invested, the longer payoff time, and the longer you/your investors have to wait to get there.

That's why shutting down and cutting your losses is worth it in a lot of cases. If you don't see a clear path to the hockey stick or to breakeven, you're better off closing the doors, even if you can raise a little more money.

And I would say that the difference between DrawSomething and Google and Twitter is that the upside potential is correspondingly larger. Search is ubiquitous, twitter is a communications mechanism (albeit one I never "got" or cared for). DrawSomething is more of a game, and while games can definitely make money, it's a highly competitive space with lots of churn. It's just less appealing from an upside potential.

So, when you solve really big problems, you might be able to raise more capital for a longer runway, because the risk/reward is greater. I suspect that DrawSomething was cool, users liked it, but that it didn't have the upside potential that something else might have.

I give Chris credit for recognizing this and walking away - and for all we know, there might have been more money to raise, but at terms he didn't care for. Which is totally reasonable.

> (the exception being fundamentally flawed business models - "let's sell bags of rocks over the internet to children!")

Are you sure? :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_Rock

    the exception being fundamentally flawed business models 
    - let's sell bags of rocks over the internet to children!

But yet it exists! http://www.kidzrocks.com/

Chris & co. created DrawQuest. You're thinking of Draw Something, created by OMGPOP.