App.net is a nice idea but won’t solve anything(zachinglis.com)
zachinglis.com
App.net is a nice idea but won’t solve anything
http://zachinglis.com/2012/app-net-is-a-nice-idea-but-wont-solve-anything/
4 comments
Small point: Zach assumes that Facebook's current conversion rate properly estimates App.net's prospective conversion rate. Incorrect.
App.net's users have /already/ paid $50 for membership, so their userbase will be more likely to (1) have expendable income, (2) feel comfortable buying digital products, and (3) feel comfortable buying products over the Web.
As such, you can expect App.net's prospective conversion rate to be (much) higher (cf. iPhone vs. Android).
App.net's users have /already/ paid $50 for membership, so their userbase will be more likely to (1) have expendable income, (2) feel comfortable buying digital products, and (3) feel comfortable buying products over the Web.
As such, you can expect App.net's prospective conversion rate to be (much) higher (cf. iPhone vs. Android).
Along a similar line, the first thing I thought when I heard about App.net is how everyone who can afford it will now be cut off from the people who can't. No more news about uprisings in Syria straight from the source, no Occupy news straight from the source, no news from basically anywhere but NYC, SF and random other towns around the US but basically no input from anyone who doesn't have extra expendable income. Pretty sad really.
At first I can see this. It would change if App.net gets crazy relevant. Maybe not as many direct from the source, but groups of dissident people could pool their resources to buy an account.
That also doesn't include the idea of sponsored accounts. Where App.net or charities in rich countries buy an account for someone in a conflict zone.
That also doesn't include the idea of sponsored accounts. Where App.net or charities in rich countries buy an account for someone in a conflict zone.
Why on earth would a group of people pool money to create an app.net account when they could post a tweet for free? Statements like that make me feel like we are super, super out of touch. We're not talking can't afford to eat at Benu 5 nights a week poor, we're talking can't afford their next meal poor. When its food to keep you alive or a part of an app.net account to broadcast whats going on to americans, the choice is going to be pretty easy.
Or, you know, rather than deal with the risk of getting caught through the money trail that creates, they could just use existing free services like they already do.
On the other hand, think of it as a never ending conference of a very specific type of crowd, a lot of the crowd from hackernews for example, who are connected to an extremely focused network, without having to deal with as much noise as they do right now on twitter/facebook.
You could stretch it to sound like a million dollar membership country club you want to be a part of because of all the potential investors who are hanging out there, and you want your idea heard.
The $50 entry barrier will not eliminate this problem, but reduce it a lot.
Also, didn't Dalton himself mention that this does not intent to be a twitter/facebook killer? Those channels will always exist and you can always check out trending topics if need be.
Just thinking out loud.
You could stretch it to sound like a million dollar membership country club you want to be a part of because of all the potential investors who are hanging out there, and you want your idea heard.
The $50 entry barrier will not eliminate this problem, but reduce it a lot.
Also, didn't Dalton himself mention that this does not intent to be a twitter/facebook killer? Those channels will always exist and you can always check out trending topics if need be.
Just thinking out loud.
"On the other hand, think of it as a never ending conference of a very specific type of crowd"
That sounds truly horrific if most web design conference tweets and talks are anything to go by.
That sounds truly horrific if most web design conference tweets and talks are anything to go by.
sponsored accounts are an option
I feel like people who deny the business model of app.net are trying to refute the existence and success of HBO. You don't need to operate at the scale of Facebook, Twitter or cable networks to be successful, mainly because your criteria for success are very different with a pay-for, ad-free product.
Moreover I don't need to be a victim of guns (sorry for referring to a lightning rod of an issue, but bare with me) to advocate gun control. Same way you don't have to be a developer victimized by Twitter and Facebook to think that there might be a better way.
And for the record, I did put my money where my mouth is.
Moreover I don't need to be a victim of guns (sorry for referring to a lightning rod of an issue, but bare with me) to advocate gun control. Same way you don't have to be a developer victimized by Twitter and Facebook to think that there might be a better way.
And for the record, I did put my money where my mouth is.
HBO's success doesn't depend on my friends also watching HBO.
But you are much more likely to pay for HBO if all your friends watch it and talk about the shows.
If app.net is aiming to be a small niche service for tech geeks to discuss tech things, then great, but we already have a lot of those (that are free) and the market is going to be very small. If app.net is aiming to be a service every man, woman, and child is on (like Facebook or Twitter) not only will the signal/noise ratio drop to the levels we are witnessing on existing networks but it's hard to imagine a world where anyone outside of the tech community pays $50 for a social network.
The whole thing seems like a nicely marketed effort towards geeks. The public at large does not care about Facebook ads or Twitter ads or "being the product." The fact the "being the product" quip is the thesis and rallying cry for app.net tells me this is a service that will always be by and for the people who care about such things, largely technologists.