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

App.net funded with $500,000.

join.app.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 211 posts

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

#101

Post by dannyr »

icebraining wrote: post #36
dave_sullivan wrote: post #22

That's pretty amazing. Clearly app.net is tapping into something that people are starting to feel pretty strongly about--the benefits of "free" aren't necessarily worth the consequences in the longterm. I could see a similar model of aligning user/company interests rather than advertiser/company interests working for other services--email probably being the biggest that comes to mind. This is actually a good thing fo…

Clearly app.net is tapping into something that people are starting to feel pretty strongly about--the benefits of "free" aren't necessarily worth the consequences in the longterm. Well, maybe. Let's remember that Twitter has more than a hundred million accounts, while App.net has ~7500; we have no evidence that the people feeling that are not just a small number of outliers, much like there always will be.

Quality > Quantity.

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

#102

Post by dj2stein9 »

encoderer wrote: post #76
dj2stein9 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You think it was the technology stack and not just that users and developers were disinterested? As a developer, I never thought once about building an app or integration for Diaspora. That's why App.Net might have a chance -- he's making this about targeting developers. There's a reason Apple has spent millions marketing different 3rd party apps -- and the whole ecosystem via "there's an app for that". There's a rea…

Rails was a horrible technology choice to to build an open decentralized messaging protocol. They were doomed from the start. NodeJS would be a better choice now.

Are there really that many developers clamoring to build new apps on yet another closed, for-profit, centralized social network with no users? I sure don't. I'm already done with Twitter and Facebook apps, the centralized model is simply not the way forward and I can't be alone with this opinion.

Techcrunch posted an editorial a while back that I agree with:

http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/03/the-federated-web-should-be...

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

#103

Post by natrius »

ceejayoz wrote: post #91
natrius wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that self-evident? People post to Facebook and Twitter to be heard. Currently, they seem to post on App.net about App.net. That's not sustainable. Personally, I use Twitter mostly to talk to people in the fields I work in, namely hacking and journalism. I don't see how either of those communities will move to App.net wholesale. If you want me to pay money just to have a conversation with you, I'm probably going…

> Isn't that self-evident? People post to Facebook and Twitter to be heard. Currently, they seem to post on App.net about App.net. That's not sustainable. My first post on Twitter was "trying to figure out WTF Twitter is". I subsequently didn't post for six months. I wouldn't judge the platform on what's posted in the first 30 days of existence. As for sustainability, $500k in revenue is more than Twitter had for yea…

I'm not judging the platform on its first 30 days. I just don't see a path to it being useful. What's the path that you see?

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

#104

Post by subpixel »

simondlr wrote: post #63
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…

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…

I disagree. If it works, the reason non-developers will join in large numbers will have to do with the services/offerings running atop app.net. I'm in no position to guess what they'll be, but I believe they can and will be developed. And I wouldn't rule out services/bundles that include app.net membership as part of the price. There's a ton of room for innovation.

In the end, people will pay for app.net for quality and for access: ala HBO, satellite radio, etc.

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

#105

Post by natrius »

mdonahoe wrote: post #98
natrius wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Do you want to be the product (facebook, twitter) or the customer (app.net)?" Where's the evidence that suggests that millions of people care about this distinction enough to pay for it?

I can't reply directly so I will reply here "People post to Facebook and Twitter to be heard." I use facebook and twitter to be heard by my friends . I don't need a massive audience to get utility from the service. Brands and celebrities are the ones that want to be heard by tons of people. Twitter and Facebook are just a different type of ad platforms for them. If my friends are on app.net, I will use it. Most peopl…

"If my friends are on app.net, I will use it."

This is the crux of the matter. I don't see how enough of my friends will ever be on App.net for me to pay for it, especially when I already use free products that have the same functionality.

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

#106

Post by ceejayoz »

natrius wrote: post #103
ceejayoz wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't that self-evident? People post to Facebook and Twitter to be heard. Currently, they seem to post on App.net about App.net. That's not sustainable. My first post on Twitter was "trying to figure out WTF Twitter is". I subsequently didn't post for six months. I wouldn't judge the platform on what's posted in the first 30 days of existence. As for sustainability, $500k in revenue is more than Twitter had for yea…

I'm not judging the platform on its first 30 days. I just don't see a path to it being useful. What's the path that you see?

A smaller, more closely knit site that doesn't have to worry as much about Twitter's antagonism towards the third-party developers who helped make them succeed.

I don't know if it'll work, but I certainly hope it does.

I imagine it being pretty spam-free if it costs $50/year, as a bonus.

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

#107

Post by natrius »

dannyr wrote: post #96
simondlr wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't read the next sentence. It is not inherently ads that are the problem, it is the fact from a company's perspective you have to cater to a) the advertisers who are paying you money vs b) your users who aren't. Currently, I'm okay in paying $50 to get access to a great community of early adopters (lets admit, it is mostly tech people). I'm not naive to expect it won't change, but once killer apps start poppi…

To expand on simondlr's point, Twitter will optimize the site for maximum exposure of ads, not user's status updates. The highest paying ads will surface to the top over the highest quality status updates.

This indicates that you think Twitter is stupid, and will make their product suck so much that people will stop using it. I don't see any evidence for that. Did the promise of ad revenue make Google destroy its search engine?

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

#108

Post by jschlesser »

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 agree that its not explained well by a paid real time social feed. Im a backer, here is what it is about for me.

1. Platform. Its not about 1 canonical interface or usage. Its real time social information network plumbing. Build your own idea on top of it. In the beginning it will be twitter clones, eventually it will be hooked into all sorts of information generators and consumers in different contexts.

2. Its about incentives. The incentives are for app.net to build the apis to support things twitter of fb never would, due an incentive to drive innovation, not stifle it.

3. Its about users control and choice. Use the interface or apps you want. Control where your information goes and who is mining it.

4. Its about friction. There is friction to blatant abuse via a pay model and there is a lack of friction to develop frictionless sharing with things like instagram.

5. Its about ownership. Your data is yours unless you choose to give it away to others.

6. Its also about alternatives to a single model for success (winner take all ad based strategies). I think its a mistake to think that its only successful with huge network effects. The infrastructure can service uses and apps that export information to other networks as well as in network uses. Its successful if it has paying users that pay for opex and capex and generate some profit.

The counter to this is that its difficult to explain to grandma in omaha until the new apps and usage models get built. If its just a paid twitter, it will fail in its ambitions. If it leads to safe private frictionless sharing in ways that couldnt realistically be contemplated before, its a success. The alpha proof of concept that is in place now is twitterish, no denying, but people are already working on things that just arent possible with facebook and twitter today.

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

#109

Post by kmfrk »

citricsquid wrote: post #6

I'm genuinely surprised, I didn't believe it would make it this far. I've backed it and I really hope it delivers, it's going to be very interesting to see how this turns out. I feel sceptical (because the value in Twitter is the people, not the platform) but I was also sceptical that this would ever reach $100,000, let alone $500,000, so clearly any assumptions previously made are wrong.

It's had a big upswing the last few days. Don't know what caused it, but maybe Dalton's blog posts fanned the fire.

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

#110

Post by eoghan »

The reason I think App.net is going to grow is NOT because it doesn't have ads or that the "users are not the product", etc. It's because the community it hosts will be so tightly grouped around a similar, passionate interest: tech startups. Requiring payment, being called "App.net" (they'll be tempted to change this), and being distributed via word of mouth amongst the segregated tech startup community, will prevent so many different types of people from using it. This is all a great thing and I bet there will be opportunities for other "Twitter for ________" ventures. Charging for a service like this that caters to a much smaller market makes it sustainable.

Congrats to Dalton and all involved. This is one of the most interesting and courageous internet projects in recent time.

Post reply on HN