App.net funded with $500,000. • Hacker News Board

Re: App.net funded with $500,000.

#61

Post by mcantelon » Sun, Aug 12, 2012, 6:26 PM UTC

chimi wrote: post #60

dkrich wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate the response, but that doesn't really answer the question of what the service provides that Facebook or Twitter doesn't. Are ads in and of themselves really a huge problem? I don't find myself often annoyed by them. Now if there were a systemic change to the service because you didn't have to alter the experience for users to generate ad revenue, then I begin to understand. However if this is the idea, t…

It's more fundamentally about this: Do you want to be the product (facebook, twitter) or the customer (app.net)? A lot of people don't want to be the product and believe when a company focuses on them as a customer rather than them as eyeballs to be sold to advertisers, who are the customer, then a better service is the outcome for the users of the service. With app.net the user is the customer. With Facebook and Twi…

And then there's Diaspora and Identica where you're neither product nor customer...

Re: App.net funded with $500,000.

#62

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Aug 12, 2012, 6:26 PM UTC

dkrich wrote: post #58

achompas wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not really sure what the purpose of this service is. ... I myself wouldn't pay to use Facebook minus the ads. You answered your own question above, and also identified why app.net won't interest you. If you're okay with ads, then I think you'd get zero utility from app.net

I appreciate the response, but that doesn't really answer the question of what the service provides that Facebook or Twitter doesn't. Are ads in and of themselves really a huge problem? I don't find myself often annoyed by them. Now if there were a systemic change to the service because you didn't have to alter the experience for users to generate ad revenue, then I begin to understand. However if this is the idea, t…

[deleted]

Re: App.net funded with $500,000.

#63

Post by simondlr » Sun, Aug 12, 2012, 6:27 PM UTC

dkrich wrote: post #58

achompas wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not really sure what the purpose of this service is. ... I myself wouldn't pay to use Facebook minus the ads. You answered your own question above, and also identified why app.net won't interest you. If you're okay with ads, then I think you'd get zero utility from app.net

I appreciate the response, but that doesn't really answer the question of what the service provides that Facebook or Twitter doesn't. Are ads in and of themselves really a huge problem? I don't find myself often annoyed by them. Now if there were a systemic change to the service because you didn't have to alter the experience for users to generate ad revenue, then I begin to understand. However if this is the idea, t…

The biggest reason why non-developers would join is because of no ads. The result is, as Dalton mentioned that they HAVE to cater for their users who are the same people who pay them. If your users are your customers, you've got an easier game to play.

As a developer, I'm a lot more excited about it. I backed mainly because I was so excited about an API that could've been what Twitter promised. I'm especially excited to see what annotations is going to emerge through it. To explain it in short: Any app can now embed any information in a post. This is big. To give a small example: Say people who allow IFTTT to post their music to app.net. IFTTT can decided to add meta information to it (adding song titles, artists, etc). Now anyone else can easily extract this information.

There is a whole underlying network waiting to be discovered. Anything can now live within in it. What if you wanted to do an instagram type app? Ask users with app.net accounts to log in. When they post a photo, add your own information to it (photo title, photo url, etc).

In the normal app.net (alpha) interface, you won't miss anything. You'll just see someone posting a photo. However, now this new instagram type app can extract this information from a user's feed, using app.net's infrastructure as their social backbone! Any social service can live on app.net's infrastructure now.

Re: App.net funded with $500,000.

#64

Post by dave_sullivan » Sun, Aug 12, 2012, 6:27 PM UTC

dkrich wrote: post #58

achompas wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not really sure what the purpose of this service is. ... I myself wouldn't pay to use Facebook minus the ads. You answered your own question above, and also identified why app.net won't interest you. If you're okay with ads, then I think you'd get zero utility from app.net

I appreciate the response, but that doesn't really answer the question of what the service provides that Facebook or Twitter doesn't. Are ads in and of themselves really a huge problem? I don't find myself often annoyed by them. Now if there were a systemic change to the service because you didn't have to alter the experience for users to generate ad revenue, then I begin to understand. However if this is the idea, t…

As I understood it, it's largely about aligning user and producer interests.

At facebook, they have engineers devoted to pleasing users, and others devoted to pleasing advertisers. It's a difficult line to walk, but it's a legitimate argument that advertisers may win in the end because Facebook is now a public company and must show positive earnings growth and all that.

App.net (I think) is proposing that if that line does not exist, they can focus 100% on building a product that users will love using, rather than something that strikes a balance between pleasing users and advertisers. I could see this being a better product in general.

All your concerns are valid though. I'm not on facebook myself, so this service itself has absolutely no appeal to me--however, I do think there are some good points behind the premise, and I've heard through the grapevine that a lot of people do use facebook pretty frequently.

Re: App.net funded with $500,000.

#65

Post by whunut » Sun, Aug 12, 2012, 6:31 PM UTC

To be honest, I was skeptical App.net would meet its $500,000 goal on time. Not because I thought it was a bad idea, but because raising that much money from customers just seemed an almost impossible feat.

So congrats, Dalton, can't wait to see what happens next!

Re: App.net funded with $500,000.

#66

Post by jemeshsu » Sun, Aug 12, 2012, 6:34 PM UTC

dj2stein9 wrote: post #31

A centralized social network is what's wrong. Despite their best intentions they're still going to have all their users and developers by the balls. This absolutely will not replace Facebook or Twitter, it'll be just another one of the dozens of copycats like Path. What really needs to happen is an open decentralized protocol needs to be agreed upon for newsfeeds + blog posts (wordpress) + microblog (twitter). Then e…

http://ampify.it/

Not sure why the down vote. I'm not associated to the project. Just to highlight an effort of a decentralised social platform.

Re: App.net funded with $500,000.

#67

Post by tptacek » Sun, Aug 12, 2012, 6:35 PM UTC

achompas wrote: post #53

dkrich wrote: post #30

I'm not really sure what the purpose of this service is. Could somebody please explain? I'm not trying to be a dick. I myself wouldn't pay to use Facebook minus the ads. I barely use it as it is. I only pay for things that provide me with some utility. The description of "a paid, real-time social feed" is vague and ambiguous.

I'm not really sure what the purpose of this service is. ... I myself wouldn't pay to use Facebook minus the ads. You answered your own question above, and also identified why app.net won't interest you. If you're okay with ads, then I think you'd get zero utility from app.net

Not true. I didn't support App.net and am not optimistic about it, but there is a much larger potential value proposition to App.net than "not seeing ads": App.net promises to allow arbitrary 3rd party clients in a way Twitter won't, because Twitter will suppress 3rd party clients that harm its ad ecosystem.

Re: App.net funded with $500,000.

#68

Post by dj2stein9 » Sun, Aug 12, 2012, 6:36 PM UTC

unimpressive wrote: post #39

dj2stein9 wrote: post #31

A centralized social network is what's wrong. Despite their best intentions they're still going to have all their users and developers by the balls. This absolutely will not replace Facebook or Twitter, it'll be just another one of the dozens of copycats like Path. What really needs to happen is an open decentralized protocol needs to be agreed upon for newsfeeds + blog posts (wordpress) + microblog (twitter). Then e…

> What really needs to happen is an open decentralized protocol needs to be agreed upon for newsfeeds + blog posts (wordpress) + microblog (twitter). Then everyone can write their own servers and clients and operate in a manner like Email currently works. Then do it. Make everyone look like idiots for not doing it sooner. Make it so cool I have to sign up.

Oh I've definitely been thinking about it. One big problem is it wouldn't be nearly as lucrative as other potential project ideas -- it simply won't be possible to build another $100B Facebook style corporation around a social network. Diaspora was kind of onto the right idea but I think they completely chose the wrong technology stack and are now stuck in the mud without any momentum.

Re: App.net funded with $500,000.

#69

Post by katcaverly » Sun, Aug 12, 2012, 6:41 PM UTC

Congratulations to Team App.net and a special shoutout to the Alpha App.netizens who brought da noise, and the passion to the last 10 days.

Now it is up to the developers to show us!!

Re: App.net funded with $500,000.

#70

Post by jasonlotito » Sun, Aug 12, 2012, 6:42 PM UTC

chimi wrote: post #60

dkrich wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate the response, but that doesn't really answer the question of what the service provides that Facebook or Twitter doesn't. Are ads in and of themselves really a huge problem? I don't find myself often annoyed by them. Now if there were a systemic change to the service because you didn't have to alter the experience for users to generate ad revenue, then I begin to understand. However if this is the idea, t…

It's more fundamentally about this: Do you want to be the product (facebook, twitter) or the customer (app.net)? A lot of people don't want to be the product and believe when a company focuses on them as a customer rather than them as eyeballs to be sold to advertisers, who are the customer, then a better service is the outcome for the users of the service. With app.net the user is the customer. With Facebook and Twi…

> Do you want to be the product (facebook, twitter) or the customer (app.net)?

So, what explicit rights does the customer have over that which they get with Facebook or Twitter? Do I have voting rights for features? Is the business model solid? I mean, $500,000 is great and all, but that needs to last an entire year all while supporting future development. Sure, they can get new people on board, but what's their plan for that?

As for being the customer, it means little. As we've learned from experience, being a customer doesn't mean anything. You ask a question about being the product or being the customer as if being a customer actually gives you something, when in reality, it doesn't. I mean, in this case, you get a years worth of service. After that, nothing else is promised.

So, beyond the years worth of service, what do you really get? What are they promising? Because so far from what I see, the reality differs from the promise.