The money part of App.net is a red herring(alexhillman.com)
alexhillman.com
The money part of App.net is a red herring
http://alexhillman.com/the-money-is-a-red-herring
29 comments
I thought I agreed with you, because I read this post thinking it was a reply to the recent article about app.net's fee-based service not being inherently superior to twitter's ad-based service. When I read the post it was actually a response to, it does make sense, but it isn't clearly stated.
If I may attempt to restate, the argument is as follows: Ilya wrote an article criticizing those who are reluctant to ask users to plunk down cold hard cash for an actual solution to their problem. This is a legitimate point. However, app.net is a poor example of someone attempting to actually get paying customers because the app.net customers are doing something more similar to donating to a cause they believe in than actually buying a product. The value of this product -- the good feeling of supporting something new and exciting -- will inherently disappear as soon as the product is no longer new and exciting. Additionally, because the product does not yet exist in anything resembling a final form, the customers are able to project their own hopes and dreams for what they would like it to be, rather than what it actually is.
This argument is a lot more than saying nothing. I definitely agree with it. If a reluctance to ask for money in fear of getting shot down because your product isn't any good is the problem, then asking for money to support some product that exists more as dreams than code isn't the solution. The solution is to build something that real people will buy, not because they are your friends, not because they want to be able to say they were an early adopter of something that will become big, but because the product actually provides value to them as it exists today.
If I may attempt to restate, the argument is as follows: Ilya wrote an article criticizing those who are reluctant to ask users to plunk down cold hard cash for an actual solution to their problem. This is a legitimate point. However, app.net is a poor example of someone attempting to actually get paying customers because the app.net customers are doing something more similar to donating to a cause they believe in than actually buying a product. The value of this product -- the good feeling of supporting something new and exciting -- will inherently disappear as soon as the product is no longer new and exciting. Additionally, because the product does not yet exist in anything resembling a final form, the customers are able to project their own hopes and dreams for what they would like it to be, rather than what it actually is.
This argument is a lot more than saying nothing. I definitely agree with it. If a reluctance to ask for money in fear of getting shot down because your product isn't any good is the problem, then asking for money to support some product that exists more as dreams than code isn't the solution. The solution is to build something that real people will buy, not because they are your friends, not because they want to be able to say they were an early adopter of something that will become big, but because the product actually provides value to them as it exists today.
I get the argument you are making and you have restated OP's post in a more respectful manner at least towards the donors.
As to App.net being more of a cause than a product, I disagree. App.net's form is formless. That users are projecting their hopes on the API is the idea. The difference is the users (mainly devs) are being empowered to build out those hopes.
The Twitter interface is just a use case of a realtime API. People waiting for Dalton to build the killer use case have missed the point. Look to the chaps that are paying $100/ year.
As to App.net being more of a cause than a product, I disagree. App.net's form is formless. That users are projecting their hopes on the API is the idea. The difference is the users (mainly devs) are being empowered to build out those hopes.
The Twitter interface is just a use case of a realtime API. People waiting for Dalton to build the killer use case have missed the point. Look to the chaps that are paying $100/ year.
The internet's form is formless though, too. The successful part so far of this is a the rallying of the troops, at least a large core group of tech community folk.
Interesting comparison, because the internet (coming out of a governmental and international history) is founded on a documented stack of open standards which have many implementations.
I don't know much about app.net and will happily admit to being wrong about this, but my impression was that they were offering a platform without any of the ingredients for duplicating that platform. In that respect, like Twitter, even if they promise not to cater to the advertising/user data industry.
I guess every company would like to become as indispensable to the internet as TCP/IP. Except that this isn't how it works - it has to be open and easily reproduced in order to become a thing like TCP/IP, which hurts monetization.
I don't know much about app.net and will happily admit to being wrong about this, but my impression was that they were offering a platform without any of the ingredients for duplicating that platform. In that respect, like Twitter, even if they promise not to cater to the advertising/user data industry.
I guess every company would like to become as indispensable to the internet as TCP/IP. Except that this isn't how it works - it has to be open and easily reproduced in order to become a thing like TCP/IP, which hurts monetization.
Indeed. In the end someone has to pay, and/or someone has to make some money to pay. It seems close to a zero-sum game - which is the point of capitalism and innovation, allowing technology to reach 100% of people and/or make the next unit of production equal to $0, and with digital software, it comes pretty damn close to $0 benefit for the next user.
I think the reason this is at the top of HN is that people want to talk about app.net and, though it may be lacking in substance, the OP brings up an interesting point of view.
A lot of people feel very deeply about some of the ideas around app.net and with people's speculation/discussion you can get a sense of what is really important to people who use HN.
A lot of people feel very deeply about some of the ideas around app.net and with people's speculation/discussion you can get a sense of what is really important to people who use HN.
[deleted]
I'm gonna go out there and say it: the money part is what really made the discussion explode.
Without a doubt. Money makes everything more complicated, even "clear business models" aren't so clear.
I have an honest question for you because I'm trying to understand this mode of thinking myself: why suddenly "no fear" of the rug being pulled out from under you? How does giving Dalton your money permanently align your interests with his?
Edit: this isn't meant to accuse Dalton of nefarious plans in the least. I just don't understand the causal link.
Edit: this isn't meant to accuse Dalton of nefarious plans in the least. I just don't understand the causal link.
Because the user is the customer. With Twitter, the advertiser is the customer, and the user is the product. This leads to seemingly-capricious changes like the recent backlash against third-party developers. But when the user is the customer, then the business's goals are aligned with the user's.
I was with you until the last sentence. How does that help developers who are being harmed under the advertiser arrangement?
The developers still make up a minority of the user revenue. Even if that flipped...there are multiple customer interests at play. Developers, member users, and the company.
No advertisers is better than advertisers, but I don't see anything that protects developers (except Dalton's word, which you didn't bring up) from similar fates in this model.
The developers still make up a minority of the user revenue. Even if that flipped...there are multiple customer interests at play. Developers, member users, and the company.
No advertisers is better than advertisers, but I don't see anything that protects developers (except Dalton's word, which you didn't bring up) from similar fates in this model.
But couldn't part of the potential be that a 3rd party developer ecosystem that feels healthy and secure will focus on providing added value for users, thereby encouraging more users? More developers? More revenue? And assumedly proving the developers worth to the company as being greater than just their $100/year (or whatever it ends up being)? I'm not saying that all parties are always going to get along like a friendly gang-bang, but I don't think it is as simple as 'The developers still make up a minority of the user revenue.'
> I don't think it's as simple as...
Is kinda the point I've been trying to make. :)
A big part of twitter's initial growth was due to 3rd party development. But the tides shifted there as well, not (just) because of advertisers but because of "normal people" joining as users.
I wonder if that's who we're actually excited to keep out? Not the advertisers, but all of those totally mediocre people who make our trending topics embarrassingly dull ;)
Is kinda the point I've been trying to make. :)
A big part of twitter's initial growth was due to 3rd party development. But the tides shifted there as well, not (just) because of advertisers but because of "normal people" joining as users.
I wonder if that's who we're actually excited to keep out? Not the advertisers, but all of those totally mediocre people who make our trending topics embarrassingly dull ;)
> Is kinda the point I've been trying to make. :)
OK fair enough. But I could have sworn I was just replying directly to something you said in your above comment. And I don't think I took it too far out of context. :)
> A big part of twitter's initial growth was due to 3rd party development. But the tides shifted there as well, not (just) because of advertisers but because of "normal people" joining as users.
Agreed. But what would you think the split would be on tide shifting regarding 3rd party development due to advertisers vs. 'normal people' signing up? I'd still bet on the former being the more pressing issue.
> I wonder if that's who we're actually excited to keep out? Not the advertisers, but all of those totally mediocre people who make our trending topics embarrassingly dull ;)
For me personally, I'm more excited about losing the advertisers. But now that you mention it, maybe losing (at least for a while) the mediocre users you speak of is just an added bonus. :P
Of course, not I or anyone else knows how App.net is going to turn out at this point, but I'm approaching it with curiosity at this stage, I don't yet see a reson to add morbidity.
OK fair enough. But I could have sworn I was just replying directly to something you said in your above comment. And I don't think I took it too far out of context. :)
> A big part of twitter's initial growth was due to 3rd party development. But the tides shifted there as well, not (just) because of advertisers but because of "normal people" joining as users.
Agreed. But what would you think the split would be on tide shifting regarding 3rd party development due to advertisers vs. 'normal people' signing up? I'd still bet on the former being the more pressing issue.
> I wonder if that's who we're actually excited to keep out? Not the advertisers, but all of those totally mediocre people who make our trending topics embarrassingly dull ;)
For me personally, I'm more excited about losing the advertisers. But now that you mention it, maybe losing (at least for a while) the mediocre users you speak of is just an added bonus. :P
Of course, not I or anyone else knows how App.net is going to turn out at this point, but I'm approaching it with curiosity at this stage, I don't yet see a reson to add morbidity.
The 3rd-party developers add value for the users. If the users are customers, then this is a good thing for the business.
In Twitter's case, the 3rd-party developers add value for the users, but subtract value from advertisers. This is good for users, but since the advertisers are Twitter's customers, this is bad for Twitter's business.
In Twitter's case, the 3rd-party developers add value for the users, but subtract value from advertisers. This is good for users, but since the advertisers are Twitter's customers, this is bad for Twitter's business.
1. Because being a platform/ an API as a service is its's publicly stated goal.
2. The clear business model of charging users makes that goal viable and feasible.
So far, I have no reason to doubt him. Do you?
BTW, I have no idea if it will be wildly successful. However, I'm certain interesting things will come out of it.
2. The clear business model of charging users makes that goal viable and feasible.
So far, I have no reason to doubt him. Do you?
BTW, I have no idea if it will be wildly successful. However, I'm certain interesting things will come out of it.
Neither of those points safeguard you from it turning into something other than what YOU want. That's the point I'm trying to make.
I don't have a specific reason for doubt, but I don't have evidence for confidence either.
I'm 100% behind a paid API as a service for the purpose of financial sustainability. But I don't think that's what has actually been purchased by the first batch of customers.
They paid for a dream, like you. And that's okay.
My point was to make sure people had a chance to see that's what they purchased. :)
I don't have a specific reason for doubt, but I don't have evidence for confidence either.
I'm 100% behind a paid API as a service for the purpose of financial sustainability. But I don't think that's what has actually been purchased by the first batch of customers.
They paid for a dream, like you. And that's okay.
My point was to make sure people had a chance to see that's what they purchased. :)
There are three factors that I think lend credibility in this case:
1) Dalton's founding vision is strongly principalled. This is what will give the company the strength to battle against the temptation to stripmine the value of the company the way that Twitter is doing with their developer-hostile stance.
2) The fact that 10k+ people put down a significant payment up front mean that there is a buy-in and critical mass to the service that mean it will have some value from day one, even just to users, and even if it is impossible for it to completely replace Twitter.
3) The money in the bank means there is both means and pressure for App.net to be developed quickly.
None of that is a guarantee, but I think it's a strong foundation for success.
1) Dalton's founding vision is strongly principalled. This is what will give the company the strength to battle against the temptation to stripmine the value of the company the way that Twitter is doing with their developer-hostile stance.
2) The fact that 10k+ people put down a significant payment up front mean that there is a buy-in and critical mass to the service that mean it will have some value from day one, even just to users, and even if it is impossible for it to completely replace Twitter.
3) The money in the bank means there is both means and pressure for App.net to be developed quickly.
None of that is a guarantee, but I think it's a strong foundation for success.
I get the difference between buying a finished product and helping fund the prospect of one you believe in. It's speculation with the return measured in non-monetary means. A point that could've been made in a tweet, on Twitter even.
Re read what you just wrote. Is there ANYTHING that is guaranteed to become what EVERYONE wants? That includes the owner.
You have no evidence to either doubt or believe. Like you have said, you chose the former, some people have decided to choose the later. That was a cool scenario until you decided your position is the right way.
What I expect from a developer like you is to attempt building/prototyping what you would like to see on top app.net. Non devs like me can speculate on what products might/come from this and things we would like to see.
To be clear, it is very good to raise questions, but let them be of substance . There is a great way to go about it [1]
This is Hackernews, we do not spend all our energy and focus on the several ways things might fail. We have more than enough people wired for that.
BTW, I am not a financial backer yet. Hopefully, I will be soon enough.
[1] https://social-igniter.com/blog/2012/08/why-we-support-app-d...
You have no evidence to either doubt or believe. Like you have said, you chose the former, some people have decided to choose the later. That was a cool scenario until you decided your position is the right way.
What I expect from a developer like you is to attempt building/prototyping what you would like to see on top app.net. Non devs like me can speculate on what products might/come from this and things we would like to see.
To be clear, it is very good to raise questions, but let them be of substance . There is a great way to go about it [1]
This is Hackernews, we do not spend all our energy and focus on the several ways things might fail. We have more than enough people wired for that.
BTW, I am not a financial backer yet. Hopefully, I will be soon enough.
[1] https://social-igniter.com/blog/2012/08/why-we-support-app-d...
I've been thinking about it. And my best guess so far is: App.net builds confidence because, if it succeeds, it will be an existence proof of itself.
Or, to be a bit more concrete: People are supporting App.net because they hope it's possible, as a business proposition, to successfully fork a subnetwork away from a major social network. Once we have confidence that this is possible, it feels like we can always do it again. We can fork it as many times as we need to. When the rug gets pulled out from under some of us, as it inevitably will, we'll weave another rug.
The money thing, which you believe is irrelevant, is actually part of the argument here: The more revenue each node in the network is worth, the smaller the size of the sub-network that can profitably be broken off and operated independently.
(Note that there's as yet no evidence that Twitter itself, let alone a subset of Twitter, can be run at a profit.)
By this interpretation, if App.net succeeds at all, Dalton's personal notions of how to run a network will rapidly diminish in relevance. Because, once one App.net succeeds, more will rapidly follow.
Or, to be a bit more concrete: People are supporting App.net because they hope it's possible, as a business proposition, to successfully fork a subnetwork away from a major social network. Once we have confidence that this is possible, it feels like we can always do it again. We can fork it as many times as we need to. When the rug gets pulled out from under some of us, as it inevitably will, we'll weave another rug.
The money thing, which you believe is irrelevant, is actually part of the argument here: The more revenue each node in the network is worth, the smaller the size of the sub-network that can profitably be broken off and operated independently.
(Note that there's as yet no evidence that Twitter itself, let alone a subset of Twitter, can be run at a profit.)
By this interpretation, if App.net succeeds at all, Dalton's personal notions of how to run a network will rapidly diminish in relevance. Because, once one App.net succeeds, more will rapidly follow.
I never said the money is irrelevant, quite the contrary.
It's VERY relevant. Just not in the way that the other author I'd cited made it out to be, nor does money have the protective alignment that I think people have convinced themselves it brings.
That said, your fragmentation thesis is an interesting one for sure. Have you seen anything along those lines researched outside of this context, by chance?
It's VERY relevant. Just not in the way that the other author I'd cited made it out to be, nor does money have the protective alignment that I think people have convinced themselves it brings.
That said, your fragmentation thesis is an interesting one for sure. Have you seen anything along those lines researched outside of this context, by chance?
> for the mere fact that it says nothing.
It says that marketing the concept of 'paid' web-apps in a professional way managed to attract > 500'000 USD in sales (as opposed to providing a solution for real user problems).
That's a fact, not speculation. Building something that people pay money for is hard. Failing to do that and asking people to buy the dream while at the same time doing heavy marketing criticizing the concept seems ironic, to say the least.
It says that marketing the concept of 'paid' web-apps in a professional way managed to attract > 500'000 USD in sales (as opposed to providing a solution for real user problems).
That's a fact, not speculation. Building something that people pay money for is hard. Failing to do that and asking people to buy the dream while at the same time doing heavy marketing criticizing the concept seems ironic, to say the least.
At this point, it seems like there is more people talking about App.net than people potentially using it.
It's going to be a self-fulfilling conspiracy. All this talk about how it's gonna succeed, and how noone understands it.. sooner or later, some misled company like FB or Google will just acqui-hire App.net for millions of dollars because everyone is talking about it.
Just like with Zynga and OMGPOP/Draw Something, and look how that ended up. :P
Good for OMGPOP...
So the author of this post can't see the reason why anyone would want to pay for this, and yet backed the project himself anyway?
It reminds me of the people you see who write forums posts like 'I just got my first Mac, now what?' when the answer is always 'do whatever you wanted it for in the first place'
It reminds me of the people you see who write forums posts like 'I just got my first Mac, now what?' when the answer is always 'do whatever you wanted it for in the first place'
No, I can reason the multitude of reasons that someone would pay, including my own. Empathy is a helluva drug.
That's not unreasonable. I too have spent money on stuff that I did not understand just to see what it was. It was only $50.
"yet backed the project himself anyway?"
Per the OP:
"By the way, I put my $50 in out of pure morbid curiosity of what’s under the hood."
I think you can both think something probably isn't going to work or have issues with it and support it as a hedge or out of, as he said, "morbid curiosity". People do this with politics quite frequently.
Per the OP:
"By the way, I put my $50 in out of pure morbid curiosity of what’s under the hood."
I think you can both think something probably isn't going to work or have issues with it and support it as a hedge or out of, as he said, "morbid curiosity". People do this with politics quite frequently.
> People do this with politics quite frequently.
Really? Do you have an example?
"I didn't really think the war in Iraq would go very well, and I don't really support it; I just wanted to see what would happen."
Really? Do you have an example?
"I didn't really think the war in Iraq would go very well, and I don't really support it; I just wanted to see what would happen."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870375750457519...
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/06/dueling-donations-lo...
You can find examples here of the same individual supporting people in both parties:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/indivs.php
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/06/dueling-donations-lo...
You can find examples here of the same individual supporting people in both parties:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/indivs.php
Supporting both parties is just support for the status quo, really, it doesn't really require opposing anything. Supporting individual candidates from both parties is even less suspicious.
"By the way, I put my $50 in out of pure morbid curiosity of what’s under the hood. In retrospect, I should’ve donated to a charity."
That's a pretty callous way to end a post, Alex. It's not either-or. If you really feel that way, ask for a refund. Donate the money to charity whether you get the refund or not.
That's a pretty callous way to end a post, Alex. It's not either-or. If you really feel that way, ask for a refund. Donate the money to charity whether you get the refund or not.
I donate regularly to donorschoose.org and organize a blood drive for the Philly tech scene 3-4x a year. I hope you've got a favorite cause, too :)
The two are orthogonal. App.net is not about charity. Bring that into the conversation is, IMO, trying to confuse the conversation.
[deleted]
Well, I'm not the one with second thoughts about my payment to app.net. Still, it's a good chance to mention http://www.nothingbutnets.net/
Sweet. Thanks for sharing.
I had the same feeling the minute I completed my payment. I don't feel quite so negative but I feel very, very suspicious.
I don't really feel negative, to be honest. Just noticing some things and wanting to point them out. From the comments so far, it seems I'm not alone in the things I've noticed.
In retrospect?! LOL, we're burning through these internet fads faster and faster every day.
I completely agree with Alex. I read the "App.net is not vaporware" post by Dalton, but still when watching the video and reading about it all I see is a vague promise and nothing special. He talks a lot about being "aligned with MY interests", but how does he know what those are? Its intentionally vague to avoid discussing hard decisions big companies like Facebook or Twitter need to make every day, regardless of where their funding comes from.
[deleted](1)
If "reserve your username" wasn't a benefit of pledging, the project wouldn't even have come close to reaching the funding target.
I don't know if red herring would be the way to call it, but the general summation that the "success" of App.net is due to marketing (particularly the out-pouring of Dalton Caldwell to the internet masse) is spot on.
Most people, especially on HN, pointed to the way "Dalton handled things" as the reason for wanting App.net to succeed. What drives the majority of the activity on App.net are these continuing discussions of what App.net could be, how fantastic it could be and what are the various kinds of pains it would solve. In fact, these very same conversations are as generic and ambiguous as the way that I describe them. Very few specific points are brought up, but rather, there are these sweeping discussions taking place on the platform.
I'm kind of curious whether what Dalton is trying to do with app.net is only capable of being accomplished with Twitter and with Twitter only. This is considering Twitter's userbase, Twitter's 3rd party app ecosystem, Twitter's traction and Twitter's history.
My point in saying this is that, it's impossible to recreate all this with another service (app.net). They are starting from scratch not only in function, but in context. I'd argue this is what's leading to the ambiguous dynamic and cloudy future for the service.
Most people, especially on HN, pointed to the way "Dalton handled things" as the reason for wanting App.net to succeed. What drives the majority of the activity on App.net are these continuing discussions of what App.net could be, how fantastic it could be and what are the various kinds of pains it would solve. In fact, these very same conversations are as generic and ambiguous as the way that I describe them. Very few specific points are brought up, but rather, there are these sweeping discussions taking place on the platform.
I'm kind of curious whether what Dalton is trying to do with app.net is only capable of being accomplished with Twitter and with Twitter only. This is considering Twitter's userbase, Twitter's 3rd party app ecosystem, Twitter's traction and Twitter's history.
My point in saying this is that, it's impossible to recreate all this with another service (app.net). They are starting from scratch not only in function, but in context. I'd argue this is what's leading to the ambiguous dynamic and cloudy future for the service.
I agree that a lot of people are cathecting their desires onto app.net. I'm probably guilty of that as well (and yes, I coughed up the $50).
But what got me excited was his basic insight -- not entirely novel, I'll grant -- that any giant social media company selling ads is going to be beholden to advertisers, and that a social media company that is beholden to their users might be a different thing.
Lots of things are possible here. The product might suck. They might get totally overwhelmed. They might not be able to sell it. Their API might end up being worse than the others (though it doesn't look that way to me).
But people kick in to kickstarter-style things because there's some idea they want to get behind (e.g. "sword fighting games should be better"), even if it doesn't pan out. And to be honest, even the OP -- in the throes of his cynicism -- is obviously experiencing the same sensation.
But what got me excited was his basic insight -- not entirely novel, I'll grant -- that any giant social media company selling ads is going to be beholden to advertisers, and that a social media company that is beholden to their users might be a different thing.
Lots of things are possible here. The product might suck. They might get totally overwhelmed. They might not be able to sell it. Their API might end up being worse than the others (though it doesn't look that way to me).
But people kick in to kickstarter-style things because there's some idea they want to get behind (e.g. "sword fighting games should be better"), even if it doesn't pan out. And to be honest, even the OP -- in the throes of his cynicism -- is obviously experiencing the same sensation.
I don't find a use for app.net at all. 50$/year for a glorified "curated" Twitter clone?
My current suspicion is that Dalton has no idea how to build what he wants, in fact he doesn't even know what the thing he wants is. So he's fanning the flames on this discussion to let everyone else come up with something for him.
"Dalton has no idea how to build what he wants"
How do you correlate that with the mostly-functional alpha which already has 90% of what I use twitter for?
I wasn't expecting anything functional for 5-6 months, and, as it exists, it's already mostly there.
How do you correlate that with the mostly-functional alpha which already has 90% of what I use twitter for?
I wasn't expecting anything functional for 5-6 months, and, as it exists, it's already mostly there.
>How do you correlate that with the mostly-functional alpha which already has 90% of what I use twitter for?
I don't mean technically. I'm sure Dalton is quite qualified to build anything he commits to. I mean he doesn't know how to build it because he doesn't know what he's building. (Yet.)
I don't mean technically. I'm sure Dalton is quite qualified to build anything he commits to. I mean he doesn't know how to build it because he doesn't know what he's building. (Yet.)
I think part of the disappointment people have in twitter stems from the days when TWITTER didn't know what twitter was going to become. It didn't become what they (and Dalton) hoped, so this is an attempt to reboot.
Except the rules didn't really change.
Except the rules didn't really change.
I'm not sure I'm interpreting your phrase "the rules" correctly, but if you mean "the conditions that led Twitter to become what it became"… of course those have changed. Twitter was born in a world that didn't already have a Twitter in it.
To argue otherwise is like saying that it made no sense for my parents to have a second child, because they already had one. Aren't two kids, with similar genetics and similar environment, simply redundant?
Obviously not. You can't duplicate the original even if you try. Nor is that the point. The point is to diversify.
I think Twitter is working fine at the moment – whatever ugly shoe they're allegedly about to drop, it hasn't dropped on me yet. But it's still great to try and reinvent Twitter, just as it was great to try and reinvent Perl, even though Perl still works just fine. You end up somewhere different.
To argue otherwise is like saying that it made no sense for my parents to have a second child, because they already had one. Aren't two kids, with similar genetics and similar environment, simply redundant?
Obviously not. You can't duplicate the original even if you try. Nor is that the point. The point is to diversify.
I think Twitter is working fine at the moment – whatever ugly shoe they're allegedly about to drop, it hasn't dropped on me yet. But it's still great to try and reinvent Twitter, just as it was great to try and reinvent Perl, even though Perl still works just fine. You end up somewhere different.
I'm with you 100% on every point you made, but my original point was that the thesis seems to be "the money comes from the users & developers now", and I don't think that's as dramatic of a shift as its been painted to be.
what's i saw is just a prototype but nothing close to '90% done' like you said. app.net just has only 10,000+ backers at the moment. they probably haven't done any thing about scalability yet.
I was once tasked with building a web app for a real estate company. The ultimate stake holder (can't remember his title) told me as we were wrapping up a requirements gathering meeting:
I don't know what I want, but I'll know it when I see it.
Really? When I hear that I think I think "You Beaut!"
A customer who wants to pay you to mess around with new ideas and come up with something great. Nothing more boring than client that knows exactly what they want.
A customer who wants to pay you to mess around with new ideas and come up with something great. Nothing more boring than client that knows exactly what they want.
> who wants to pay you to mess around with new ideas and come up with something great.
My experience is that the only want to pay for the "coming up with something great" part, not the messing around with new ideas.
Worse still, they only want to pay for what they see, which is usually just the tip of the iceberg.
Give me a boring client over someone with lots of imagination, any day.
My experience is that the only want to pay for the "coming up with something great" part, not the messing around with new ideas.
Worse still, they only want to pay for what they see, which is usually just the tip of the iceberg.
Give me a boring client over someone with lots of imagination, any day.
"...too green to know that I should have run for my life after that statement."
Yep.
Yep.
Even when customers think they know what they want, they usually don't. They lack imagination and an analytic mind.
Customer wants A, B and C. You point out that A and B collide, and offer a solution, D. Customer insists on A, B and C. You tell him again. Customer insists on A, B and C. You create A, B and C. Customer realizes that A and B collide and that A, B and C are really not working as imagined. Customer blames you. You present D again. Customer caves in and orders D, as a replacement for A and B. Customer blames the additional cost on you and is unhappy.
Customer wants H, I and J. You tell him that he wants M, N and O. But that M, N and O cost twice as much as H, I and J. Customer is furious. You want the business. So you build H, I and J. Customer realizes it's not working. Customer blames you and is unhappy.
Customer wants X. You ask him why. Because of Q. You realize that the customer would need E instead of X. You offer X but you build E instead, because it's possible within the same budget and time window. You relabel E to X. Customer is happy. His vision worked.
Customer wants A, B and C. You point out that A and B collide, and offer a solution, D. Customer insists on A, B and C. You tell him again. Customer insists on A, B and C. You create A, B and C. Customer realizes that A and B collide and that A, B and C are really not working as imagined. Customer blames you. You present D again. Customer caves in and orders D, as a replacement for A and B. Customer blames the additional cost on you and is unhappy.
Customer wants H, I and J. You tell him that he wants M, N and O. But that M, N and O cost twice as much as H, I and J. Customer is furious. You want the business. So you build H, I and J. Customer realizes it's not working. Customer blames you and is unhappy.
Customer wants X. You ask him why. Because of Q. You realize that the customer would need E instead of X. You offer X but you build E instead, because it's possible within the same budget and time window. You relabel E to X. Customer is happy. His vision worked.
This is where you bill by the hour
I'm not sure if app.net will even begin to live up to the expectations of it's users and spectators, but maybe this is a discussion about how we would like to see services behave in the future. We can show people that respect for personal data, and an open API is greatly valued.
This is bigger than Dalton, it's about what we want the services we use to look like.
This is bigger than Dalton, it's about what we want the services we use to look like.
This is the healthy outlook I wish more people had...and that we didn't need to throw money at a false idol to have that conversation.
Hence, the money being an intentional distraction (red herring) from the real issues.
Hence, the money being an intentional distraction (red herring) from the real issues.
You can't have the conversation without money. Anything else is a land of wishful thinking, simply because it takes money to run the service.
I did not commit to app.net, but I am philosophically backing them. I think the meta-goal is right, even if this particular incantation is (or isn't) the right one.
I did not commit to app.net, but I am philosophically backing them. I think the meta-goal is right, even if this particular incantation is (or isn't) the right one.
I'm with you on the meta-goal being "right". And I didn't say to exclude money from the equation, Dalton and his team deserve to be paid for their work: once they actually solve a real pain point. Right now the pain looks a lot like fear & hope to me, two things that make people do silly, unsustainable things with their money.
He's trying to start a movement to figure it out. Big difference.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Can someone give an example of an application that would be built on top of App.net?
I think it is probably going to be pretty low volume. Just for fun I would like to see an IRC style realtime interface. Treat hashtags (assuming they have hashtags, I haven't looked past the join page) as channels, read and write as if it were a realtime chat.
Isn't the alpha "what he wants to build"?
Not saying this applies to app.net (because I refuse to pay attention to the story), but I'd like to coin a phrase that I imagine may become popular soon: "'strap and dump". There, claim staken.
I've been arguing that the App.net idea won't succeed for the past few days mainly because I like arguing, especially when I'm right. The App.net company on the other hand, will probably be fine. They just got ~$800k with few strings attached. When they realize that the idea isn't great, they'll probably have enough money left over to change it into something that works.
app.net taught me that in 6 months I need to start another twitter clone, except this time the price of entry is $1000. I mean, just imagine the signal to noise ratio there!
I still don't get App.net. There's no possible way anyone outside of this tiny dev community will actually pay of a service like Twitter, yet there's no way for it to become actually relevant if it's just another echo chamber for startup hipsters
This is zero-sum thinking. App.net doesn't have to be as big as Twitter to be successful. There are many pay services to compare it to. Metafilter is one.
You're right it wouldn't need to grow to the size of Twitter to be successful, but I don't see how it would grow beyond the HN set (and just a subset then). I can't think a single reason anyone would pay for Twitter, when free Twitter already exists. The only pain point App.net really covers is for 3rd party devs who want to quit their day jobs to sell Twitter iPhone apps but can't any more.
You're ignoring the possibility that it will be different from / better than Twitter.
Yup, they don't have to be big. Then what's the point of developers to develop on top of app.net API while their user base is small? Less revenue, more "freedom" to develop?
Smaller, but willing to pay.
Don't (didn't?) companies pay for yammer?
I could imagine companies wanting silo'd instances for company use (if app.net started offering it at some point). Status.Net offers something like this I believe too.
I could imagine companies wanting silo'd instances for company use (if app.net started offering it at some point). Status.Net offers something like this I believe too.
But that blot contains within it a pretty obvious potential to be viewed as a bat though, doesn't it? If it was say, a square with a smaller square inside it, then it's unlikly anyone would interpret it as a bat. I understand the purpose of a Rorschach test (dubious as it may be), and I get the point being made by the OP. But my point is that I have backed App.net because it looks enough like it has the potential to become something useful to me, in a number of ways. I don't feel that there's a bait and switch going on here or that I have been otherwise swindled in some way. And I'm pretty cynical most of the time.
Free but ad supported isn't the only way online, but one could be forgiven for thinking it is. I am happy to encourage anyone trying alternatives. I want to see what social services that don't need to cater to advertisers look like, and this is one such model. I wonder why some people appear quite threatened by such.
Time will tell if the service turns out to be a bat or not. I approach with few preconceptions, I'm happy to wait it out for a while and give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Seems to me he's doing OK so far.
Free but ad supported isn't the only way online, but one could be forgiven for thinking it is. I am happy to encourage anyone trying alternatives. I want to see what social services that don't need to cater to advertisers look like, and this is one such model. I wonder why some people appear quite threatened by such.
Time will tell if the service turns out to be a bat or not. I approach with few preconceptions, I'm happy to wait it out for a while and give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Seems to me he's doing OK so far.
Boy, a lot of people sure hate this project, don't they?
I don't hate it, but I still don't see much use for it.
Being free of ads is nice. But it seems to me that the hype for this parallels the hype for Twitter, which was mostly viciously circular: you have to be on Twitter because otherwise you'll miss what's happening on Twitter.
Now I am paying $50 to help him build it. I guess that makes sense if you have business ideas for pitching to the people who feel they have to be on Twitter. But I will admit to a little discomfort with how much of the interest is based on projections of everyone else's interest.
Being free of ads is nice. But it seems to me that the hype for this parallels the hype for Twitter, which was mostly viciously circular: you have to be on Twitter because otherwise you'll miss what's happening on Twitter.
Now I am paying $50 to help him build it. I guess that makes sense if you have business ideas for pitching to the people who feel they have to be on Twitter. But I will admit to a little discomfort with how much of the interest is based on projections of everyone else's interest.
I don't use twitter much, but I've never seen ads on it. Where are people seeing ads?
I actually don't hate this project, I think it's interesting or else it wouldn't have caught my attention in the first place. I just noticed a few things about it and wrote what I saw.
Not necessarily talking about you.
What I don't understand is all these people so fervently defending Dalton and his idea. Should we instead approach app.net with some healthy skepticism?
I think there is definitely something to be said for the view that App.net is this elusive concept that people are wildly dreaming about. Look through at the 100 submissions about App.net per day, there are so many different speculations, even contradictory ones, but not a lot of information coming out.
There's a group that thinks App.net is not the point, they think App.net is somehow the social network backbone or "social-network-as-a-service" or something. But that doesn't make a lot of sense to me because App.net is charging. So if you start you're little niche social network "MechanicWorld," which seems like back-to-the-future but ok, are the users paying MechanicWorld or App.net (how would they know App.net exists?). Is MechanicWorld going to offer free signup, provide an advertising based business model, and simply subsidize the free user accounts? If that's the case, what's the point of App.net again?
Some people think it is a twitter but for people that visit HN/TechCrunch ... don't those people use Twitter? That's a pretty strange market, but this one is a bit of a strawman, I've only heard it a bit and I don't think Dalton has intention of this.
I think it is still very vague what it is and how it will work. I think most concrete, least nebulous, it could be is "Twitter that You Pay For - Period." It has been covered to death, but I don't think you can rival Twitter with that.
Do you really see CNN blasting it all over the place, restaurants putting "Follow us on App.net, ($50/yr)," etc? That's the weight, unfortunately Twitter has. Twitter has people believing they are responsible for the Arab Spring (yeah right) -- I don't know how App.net is going to get this kind of press.
And the other thing, App.net, really? That's the name? When I first heard about it, I thought "Oh, ok they seem to have some completely unrelated business already and are just using this 'App.net' thing temporarily" but I don't see anything implying that is going to change; I'm going to assume someone is working on this, because that's no name for what they're trying to do (whatever it is exactly).
Nevertheless, it is nice to see something besides "We are revolutionizing the way users share photos or communicate" "... but we don't know how we're going to make money -- advertising?"
There's a group that thinks App.net is not the point, they think App.net is somehow the social network backbone or "social-network-as-a-service" or something. But that doesn't make a lot of sense to me because App.net is charging. So if you start you're little niche social network "MechanicWorld," which seems like back-to-the-future but ok, are the users paying MechanicWorld or App.net (how would they know App.net exists?). Is MechanicWorld going to offer free signup, provide an advertising based business model, and simply subsidize the free user accounts? If that's the case, what's the point of App.net again?
Some people think it is a twitter but for people that visit HN/TechCrunch ... don't those people use Twitter? That's a pretty strange market, but this one is a bit of a strawman, I've only heard it a bit and I don't think Dalton has intention of this.
I think it is still very vague what it is and how it will work. I think most concrete, least nebulous, it could be is "Twitter that You Pay For - Period." It has been covered to death, but I don't think you can rival Twitter with that.
Do you really see CNN blasting it all over the place, restaurants putting "Follow us on App.net, ($50/yr)," etc? That's the weight, unfortunately Twitter has. Twitter has people believing they are responsible for the Arab Spring (yeah right) -- I don't know how App.net is going to get this kind of press.
And the other thing, App.net, really? That's the name? When I first heard about it, I thought "Oh, ok they seem to have some completely unrelated business already and are just using this 'App.net' thing temporarily" but I don't see anything implying that is going to change; I'm going to assume someone is working on this, because that's no name for what they're trying to do (whatever it is exactly).
Nevertheless, it is nice to see something besides "We are revolutionizing the way users share photos or communicate" "... but we don't know how we're going to make money -- advertising?"
i looked at the rorsach image on his site out of curiosity.
i saw two people facing away from each other, their index fingers raised as if to say "nope, we're not part of a rorsach blot"
i saw two people facing away from each other, their index fingers raised as if to say "nope, we're not part of a rorsach blot"
I agree with the title but not the article.
App.net is an API-centric twitter. The fact that it costs money or doesn't have advertising is secondary. Sure, it's probably a requirement for an API-centric twitter, but the API-centricity is the real actual key.
ps - Dalton, understand why reserved twitter names is for contributors only, but you might want a feature like _twittername as a sub-namespace for twitter reserved names that are aliases for real app.net names. Just sayin.
App.net is an API-centric twitter. The fact that it costs money or doesn't have advertising is secondary. Sure, it's probably a requirement for an API-centric twitter, but the API-centricity is the real actual key.
ps - Dalton, understand why reserved twitter names is for contributors only, but you might want a feature like _twittername as a sub-namespace for twitter reserved names that are aliases for real app.net names. Just sayin.
[deleted]
Developers overpaying for app.net:
Apple iOS Registered Developer - $99/yr - TAM: 365M iOS devices
Google Play for Developers - $25 one-time fee - TAM: 400M Android devices
App.net developer tier - $100/yr - TAM: 10K+ members
Apple iOS Registered Developer - $99/yr - TAM: 365M iOS devices
Google Play for Developers - $25 one-time fee - TAM: 400M Android devices
App.net developer tier - $100/yr - TAM: 10K+ members
On a side note: The ink blot does look like a bat.
Writing a blogpost speculating about the motivations behind App.net, behind people backing it, the result, the lesson about the post speaking of the fear of money, about how app.net will turnout.
Just a bunch of negative speculation bundled together and called a blogpost then to go on to the comments and boast about how charitable you are [1]
At worst, APP.NET is an experiment and people found it worthy to spend $50 on this experiment. NO-ONE knows how this thing can/will turn out.
I am really looking forward to what the outcome of this project/experiment would be. i.e a real-time messaging API with no fear of the rug being pulled under you by the platform owner.
[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4379277