Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware

daltoncaldwell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 130 posts

Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware

#101

Post by ghshephard »

elmuchoprez wrote: post #85
ghshephard wrote: post #28

Earlier 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…

John Siricusa blatantly stated that he funded it before even fully understanding what it was. His support was based on Marco and Grueber (among others) supporting it. Marco is supporting it but has blatantly said he doesn't think it's going to work out. Dan Benjamin has echoed Marco's statements and implied that he specifically bought in to reserve a specific user name, which I imagine is just a precaution to protect…

Notice that I didn't say I was supporting app.net because this group of people are supporting it. I'm supporting it because these are people who I find interesting will likely be there for a while. I don't really care _why_ they are there, just that they are there. Add Horace Dediu, Jim Dalrymple, MG Siegler, KenJennings - and I can now transition over. Of all those names, only KenJennings is unlikely to care - but, I have to believe, that for a while, crossposting to twitter/app.net, and a client that can sort out the two, and keep a unified feed, will resolve that issue.

Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware

#102

Post by SCdF »

I read HN every day. It is probably the site I read the most after Google reader. It is my go to for filling time between doing actual work and doing more actual work. I'd like to think I'm vaguely down with the Internet kids, but..

Wtf is App.net and why do I care? Am I supposed to know about this already? Is this supposed to be as common knowledge as twitter or facebook in my nomenclature?

Dalton is sure as shit not going to tell you, and the site is far too awesome to waste its time telling you either.

Reading the API docs (really, I have to read API docs to work out what this does?!) tells me it's a "real-time social service where users and developers come first, not advertisers.".

Taking that knowledge on hand and looking at alpha.app.net, it looks like a twitter clone, but presumably one that you pay for.

Aren't there free twitter clones already?

Anyway, rant over, colour me confused. Idk... there are lots of projects people could be building, and there is every kind of possibility this has really useful stuff in it, but from the outside it just looks like another twitter clone.

Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware

#103

Post by [deleted] »

andrew_simone wrote: post #79
briandear wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 persona…

[deleted]

Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware

#104

Post by ConstantineXVI »

wmf wrote: post #95
webjprgm wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it work if the 3rd-party devs were the customers? I.e. anyone using XYZ's app gets in for free because XYZ company pays the usage fees (out of it's ad revenue). That would avoid app.net trying to shut down services that customers like. It would also improve user adoption since it's free to the user. But how does this model compare to the customer-centric one?

Another model that might be worth trying is pay to send, free to receive. So if people just want to follow Scoble, let Scoble pay for 'em.

Are you suggesting users pay per follower? You've essentially turned it into an advertising platform; which gets us right back where we started only worse (can't get influence at all unless you pay for it)

Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware

#105

Post by notJim »

SCdF wrote: post #102

I read HN every day. It is probably the site I read the most after Google reader. It is my go to for filling time between doing actual work and doing more actual work. I'd like to think I'm vaguely down with the Internet kids, but.. Wtf is App.net and why do I care? Am I supposed to know about this already? Is this supposed to be as common knowledge as twitter or facebook in my nomenclature? Dalton is sure as shit no…

What? It says "App.net is a real-time social feed without the ads." right at the top of https://join.app.net, and "Continue to join.app.net, our Kickstarter-like project to create a real-time social feed." right on app.net.

How is he supposed to tell you what it is if you don't even go to the website?

Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware

#106

Post by guiambros »

maxwin wrote: post #4

I 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…

You're missing the point. He doesn't have to create a closed platform for paying members only. He just need to have enough paying members to maintain the platform.

Wikipedia is free and has no ads, but survives thanks to its "paid members" (i.e., donors). Still open and free of ads for everybody (well, except for that one month that you see Jimmy Wales' banners all the time :)).

Yes, somebody has to pay the bills on app.net. Maybe it'll be 10,000 core hackernews users. If it gets traction, maybe he'll find enough corporate supporters and donors to keep it afloat. Maybe he'll be able to create an ecosystem where devs pay to get premium services, or some revenue sharing model (like Apple/Android).

There's tons of options to make money without having to sell its user base like twitter/fb. That's the approach he's taking.

It's not an easy challenge, but kudos to Dalton for trying. I'm a backer, and a strong supporter of the initiative. Not because I'm against ads (quite the opposite; I work at a marketing agency), but there's a clear conflict of interest between companies whose product is to sell their user base - fb, twitter - versus those that focus on users - wikipedia, dropbox, etc.

Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware

#107

Post by SCdF »

notJim wrote: post #105
SCdF wrote: post #102

I read HN every day. It is probably the site I read the most after Google reader. It is my go to for filling time between doing actual work and doing more actual work. I'd like to think I'm vaguely down with the Internet kids, but.. Wtf is App.net and why do I care? Am I supposed to know about this already? Is this supposed to be as common knowledge as twitter or facebook in my nomenclature? Dalton is sure as shit no…

What? It says "App.net is a real-time social feed without the ads." right at the top of https://join.app.net , and "Continue to join.app.net, our Kickstarter-like project to create a real-time social feed." right on app.net. How is he supposed to tell you what it is if you don't even go to the website?

I clicked the link in his blog post, which took me here: https://alpha.app.net/. You're right though, 3 paragraphs into the blog there is a link to join.app.net.

Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware

#108

Post by agentcoops »

jmduke wrote: post #59
ghshephard wrote: post #28

Earlier 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?

To be honest, I used Twitter initially because it was interesting to read and be in dialogue with the larger tech community in a way that I might not on, say, my Facebook (very technical discussions, etcetc). I could of course browse a Twitter list of twelve people, but the way I am willing to participate in Twitter changed the moment it became more than a tech ghetto. In fact, Twitter became essentially useless to me on that day. I could really think of worse things happening than another such niche social network emerging... Consolidation, especially of data, is incredibly overrated.

Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware

#109

Post by rdl »

EwanToo wrote: post #63
maxwin wrote: post #4

I 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…

I think the real bubble is people ignoring the existence of status.net and identi.ca, and the reasons why they never took off as alternatives to twitter. Status.net has evolved into a private twitter for companies but the identica service still runs, still has a user base, and is everything you need for an alternative to twitter.

Random Canadian company vs. a well-connected Silicon Valley founder would potentially be sufficient.

Or 2012 vs. 2009.

Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware

#110

Post by ceslami »

look_lookatme wrote: post #68
anu_gupta wrote: post #60

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?

Have you taken a moment to read anything about it? It is abundantly clear.

join.app.net, in case you really haven't, which I'm hoping is the case.

Post reply on HN