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

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

#111

Post by dkrich » Sun, Aug 12, 2012, 7:43 PM UTC

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…

That's not revenue. It's a donation. That's a pretty big difference. I know the counterargument will be that people are paying to use the service. That's like saying people who fund a project on Kickstarter are paying for the product. They aren't. They're paying for the development, which is one-time in nature and a donation.

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

#112

Post by achompas » Sun, Aug 12, 2012, 7:48 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…

Again, you answered in your first 3 sentences. The propsed absence of advertising on app.net will change how users interact with the service, as well as how the service grows.

Twitter and Facebook wants to market to their users. This now influences all of their product decisions! Any changes to the service aim to increase CPM. I won't debate whether that makes FB/Twitter better or worse, but they are fundamentally different than a product which does not seek, above all else, to raise money by advertising to its users.

Here are some ways in which a paid service might differ from an ad-based service:

(1) No ads means no B2B sales team, which means more money to hire developers.

(2) The product pipeline looks different without ads. Would Twitter have featured "Explore" so prominently if it wasn't a central hub for advertising? Would they have de-emphasized direct messages?

(3) Lower infrastructure costs and dev time related to scaling. A smaller user base, in this case, will require less supporting infrastructure and a simpler code base. Both of these save app.net money and dev time, allowing the team to focus on features.

(4) Analytics and research will have a different purpose. Instead of analyzing user behavior to identify ideal ad placement or selection, App.net will try to identify the best features and cull the worst in an attempt to keep users around.

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

#113

Post by natrius » Sun, Aug 12, 2012, 7:48 PM UTC

unimpressive wrote: post #99

natrius wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sort of service depends on network effects. I suspect that 90+% of Twitter and Facebook users aren't willing to pay $50 to get rid of ads. If even Google is having trouble getting traction with a social networking product, I don't see why anyone is confident that a social network users have to pay for will end up with a large enough user base to be useful.

> I suspect that 90+% of Twitter and Facebook users aren't willing to pay $50 to get rid of ads. Yes. But I have no interest in talking to +90% of the people on Twitter and Facebook. The success of app.net won't depend on how many total users sign up over the services lifetime. It will depend more on how interesting the people who ultimately sign up are. A lot of it is perception, right now twitter is something of a…

"It will depend more on how interesting the people who ultimately sign up are."

I don't see how this is true. If my friends aren't on App.net, I'll still use Facebook. If the people who discuss the issues that I tend to tweet about aren't on App.net, I'll still use Twitter. What will I then gain by using App.net as well, especially since most App.net users will probably syndicate their posts to Twitter?

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

#114

Post by possibilistic » Sun, Aug 12, 2012, 7:50 PM UTC

I know that this service may become valuable for a large number of the HN crowd. It might be up my alley for a price of $10/yr or so. But at $50/yr, I cannot justify its expense.

That said, I wish Caldwell the best of luck. In the future hopefully he can provide tiered pricing plans.

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

#115

Post by w1ntermute » Sun, Aug 12, 2012, 7:50 PM UTC

natrius wrote: post #77

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

This sort of service depends on network effects. I suspect that 90+% of Twitter and Facebook users aren't willing to pay $50 to get rid of ads. If even Google is having trouble getting traction with a social networking product, I don't see why anyone is confident that a social network users have to pay for will end up with a large enough user base to be useful.

Like unimpressive said, there is a big upside to the filtering effect that there being a price will create. I don't use Facebook or Twitter because there's too much noise on there and I don't want to offend people I know who are very nice individuals, but share aspects of their life I don't care about, by defriending/unfollowing them.

Maybe App.net will nicely take care of that. I would definitely like to see a social network that provides me with content I want for once. Google+ has come pretty close, but that'll rapidly change if it gains mainstream traction, although Circles could prove to be a solution.

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

#116

Post by natrius » Sun, Aug 12, 2012, 7:50 PM UTC

eoghan wrote: post #110

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…

I don't see how "Twitter for _______" is a good idea. I can make "Twitter for _______" by following the right people. The idea that Twitter's user base is too broad doesn't make any sense to me.

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

#117

Post by jschlesser » Sun, Aug 12, 2012, 7:54 PM UTC

eoghan wrote: post #110

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…

I think how you concive it now is about spam free twitter or fb and thats what everybody is talking about. I dont think thats the real story. Imagine what you could do with real time syndication infrastructure with privacy and ownership controls built in. BP monitors, blood glucose monitors, runkeeper data, music listening streams, all kinds of data streams and a robust community of app builders to build all kinds of streaming and where desired sharing. If i dont want to see your spotify listens, i can turn that off, if i dont want you to see my health info but want to share with my doc, that can happen too. Go nuts, imagine the future without having to be forced to cram it into a timeline or public feed mined for ad relevance.

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

#118

Post by jasondc » Sun, Aug 12, 2012, 7:55 PM UTC

eoghan wrote: post #110

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…

StockTwits is an example of Twitter for Finance. They are almost completely detached from Twitter (I believe you can post to Twitter from StockTwits but not read).

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

#119

Post by dchurchv » Sun, Aug 12, 2012, 8:00 PM UTC

eoghan wrote: post #110

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…

Agree with @jschlesser. I think app.net will evolve more like a backbone for other activity streams (private, public, internal), not so much as a standalone "niche Twitter", but it's fine that it will start out that way, and can be funded that way. Could be wrong, but I think that's what the enthusiasm is really about, not just finding another social network to play with.

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

#120

Post by anu_gupta » Sun, Aug 12, 2012, 8:00 PM UTC

natrius wrote: post #107

dannyr wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Twitter's success is a function of the emergent behaviour of users and applications built off the platform (including, but not limited to 3rd party clients).

They're now trying to freeze innovation and homogenise us. That's the real killer, not the ads (although the ads are shit too).

Sure, it'll be ok for many people in the future. But it probably won't be the Twitter that I and others want. What's wrong with trying an alternative?