Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the upside is that as app.net relies on people paying money, the users are customers instead of being the product.
What's the product then?
I think it's the service that is the product.
Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware
71–80 of 130 posts
Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware
#72StatusNet is also not vaporware. Furthermore, it's also open source and federated rather than being yet another proprietary walled garden run by a corporation.
Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware
#73I think a paid model will be the only way forward for the set of people that value privacy and control over their data. I dont know that app.net hits the right ($) spot for that user group. The implication of facebook's revenue is that users are willing to trade privacy and data ownership for about $4/yr (the current monetization rate of a facebook user), which means getting to $50/yr seems somewhat arbitrary and har…
>> I think at some point in the future people will see $50/yr for those two things (privacy and data control) as a relative bargain. I can't remember ever hearing anyone mention privacy/data control issues outside of HN. Facebook has ridden slipshod over these issues many times and yet I've never heard anyone bring them up in conversation. The echo chamber here is booming with concern but who actually cares? Users ca…
I am not in Silicon Valley nor connected to any technology companies.
I know of a number of people within my own circle that refuse to use Facebook or Twitter due to privacy concerns. I have heard a growing number of stories from people concerned about protecting themselves and their friends, families from the potential down sides to an over-shared life and deleting or abandoning accounts due to those concerns. These are not people inside of the echo chamber on Hacker News or the technology field or Silicon Valley, these are people in retail, in investments, in hospitality, education.. from all walks of life.
Facebook (as an example) wants to become an identity service. They are selling themselves on their ability to authenticate identity. It is impossible to delete a facebook account, and attempting to do so will merely ensure that you are the only one without access to the collected data.
I reiterate the point that "in the future" people will see $50/yr as a bargain for privacy and data control. My first thought when seeing App.net was "awesome idea.. 18-24 months too soon, especially at that price point."
Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware
#74I think it's going to be very hard to pull this off. I feel like Dalton is living in a bubble of people who are willing to pay to avoid ads. But for most everyone else, a social network with ads (that are not TOO annoying) is much better than one that ask for your money. He might be able to find enough people to pay to become a profitable business but I doubt he will ever reach facebook or twitter like scale. And if…
For me, I don't care if it's a bubble. I'm not going to stop using Twitter any time soon, I don't think - but I'd love to have another network that's full of the people who will self-select to join this. Ultimately I think they'll end up driving usage for a lot of other people, too, and I'll bet that's his strategy, at least in part.
Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware
#75StatusNet is also not vaporware. Furthermore, it's also open source and federated rather than being yet another proprietary walled garden run by a corporation.
The thing with projects/apps/sites is that there's a threshold of time before it's considered passe. It's not logical and we in turn waste a lot of time and resources reinventing the wheel but that's the truth of the matter.
I can't shake the feeling that this initiative suffers from the worst of both worlds. It's not entirely open AND it's a paid service.
Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
I listen to the podcasts of precisely six people . Four of those six people have already voiced support for join.app.net ((Dan Benjamin, John Grueber, Marco Armenti, John Siracusa). I expect the other two would join fairly quickly, and, given the "open" nature of join.app.net, I expect anybody who wanted cross-posting from twitter over to join.app.net, wouldn't have much difficulty. Just have the client post on both…
Honest question: what stops you from simply browsing a twitter list of those twelve people? Or, more pragmatically: what incentive do I, a person who doesn't really care about 'openness' and uses Twitter for a billion other reasons anyway, have to pay $50 and subscribe to app.net instead of just following the twitter list of those twelve people?
If you can't figure it out yet.. you are not the target market.
Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it solves one, I think its providing a way for developers to stick it to the man. In this case, Twitter, Craigslist, and Facebook.
If by "sticking it to the man" you mean "creating a business model based on an open api and not the content in the platform the API uses," then I agree. The problem with Twitter and Facebook is that they've moved away from supporting external developers into media companies (so the argument goes). If that's true, then Twitter and Facebook are looking for the best interests of it's advertising partners like every medi…
[deleted]
Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
I listen to the podcasts of precisely six people . Four of those six people have already voiced support for join.app.net ((Dan Benjamin, John Grueber, Marco Armenti, John Siracusa). I expect the other two would join fairly quickly, and, given the "open" nature of join.app.net, I expect anybody who wanted cross-posting from twitter over to join.app.net, wouldn't have much difficulty. Just have the client post on both…
Honest question: what stops you from simply browsing a twitter list of those twelve people? Or, more pragmatically: what incentive do I, a person who doesn't really care about 'openness' and uses Twitter for a billion other reasons anyway, have to pay $50 and subscribe to app.net instead of just following the twitter list of those twelve people?
Twitter is fine now, but, over the next few years, will become increasingly polluted, and brought down by the mandates of Twitter Inc. having to be a multi-billion dollar company, and make money off eyeballs. Twitter is _fine_ right now - I can chose my client, I can follow a clean feed - (all of the above are in my feed). There are NO problems whatsoever with twitter, for me, right now. In the next few years, that will likely change. Clients will become restricted, the feed will become polluted, and my eyeballs will be resold.
I like to get ahead of the curve.
I use Path, not Facebook. I don't watch commercial TV w/commercials. And I support app.net. Their business model is pretty straightforward - "The user is the customer, not the advertiser."
I like being the customer. That's why I'm paying $50. It's also why I'll migrate off Path to the first company that comes up with a business model that also foregoes selling my information and attention (While, like twitter, it's pretty close to perfect for me right now, I'm sure Path will go downhill - unless they find some ueber clever low-overhead approach akin to what Craigslist has been able to do.)
Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
If by "sticking it to the man" you mean "creating a business model based on an open api and not the content in the platform the API uses," then I agree. The problem with Twitter and Facebook is that they've moved away from supporting external developers into media companies (so the argument goes). If that's true, then Twitter and Facebook are looking for the best interests of it's advertising partners like every medi…
So what's the business model? Are there enough developers willing to pay real money for access to an API? It seems hard enough to get developers to actually buy a license for Sublime or TextMate (or even pay $0.99 for a song on iTunes.) I could see some potential in the enterprise space to license out the API for companies to then build their own information services atop of.. but that seems to get away from the "pow…
I don't understand the confusion folks have about the business model (earnest confusion, not "yur dumb" trolling confusion).
App.net creates an API and people pay money to have access. Different tiers demand different prices. $500,000 in membership fees makes it sustainable (says Dalton).
The big question and, quite frankly, the whole point of Dalton's experiment (as I read him anyway, I don't know the fellow personally), is to test if there is actually a market for it, hence the kickstarter like campaign.
There are paid version of all sorts of web services that are offered for free that are sustainable. I pay for a server space and a domain names yearly. I don't know why something like this couldn't also exist for those who wanted more control.
Will Dalton's work? Time will tell, but something like this will happen and will happen soon.
EDIT: Incidentally, you do know that other people are trying similar things, right? Heello, for instance, is rebooting with a slightly different model: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/08/08/twitpic-founders-he....
Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
If by "sticking it to the man" you mean "creating a business model based on an open api and not the content in the platform the API uses," then I agree. The problem with Twitter and Facebook is that they've moved away from supporting external developers into media companies (so the argument goes). If that's true, then Twitter and Facebook are looking for the best interests of it's advertising partners like every medi…
So what's the business model? Are there enough developers willing to pay real money for access to an API? It seems hard enough to get developers to actually buy a license for Sublime or TextMate (or even pay $0.99 for a song on iTunes.) I could see some potential in the enterprise space to license out the API for companies to then build their own information services atop of.. but that seems to get away from the "pow…
[deleted]