Greetings from way out here in Userland! Out here, there is no way that people are going to pay to be "social" online. Just FYI.
App.net funded with $500,000.
161–170 of 211 posts
Re: App.net funded with $500,000.
#162@jayneely: Free-for-students is a bad way to go. Most students can't contribute much value, and it leaves out all the young people that either can't afford or chose not to go to college.
@christopher: I think there's value in some kind of tiered pricing model, especially when it comes to enabling students - in a managed, not free for all, manner - to contribute positively to the ecosystem. Perhaps that's the educator in me.
@elliottpayne: I think there's a broader issue of elitism & the digital divide baked into @adn, but that's a bit out of scope of this topic. But it's a weird suggestion that students can't add value
This is a thread from the site, but I'm quoting it here because it's relevant to the discussion about what kind of community app.net will become. The first two comments make me uneasy: even if there is value in excluding/discouraging people who don't contribute positively-- which is true for a site like Hacker News, but not so much, I think, for a Twitter-like site where you only see the activity of people you follow; the Global stream is an exception, but it'll only take a little more growth before it becomes unusable anyway-- trying to judge from a blank slate whether someone who might sign up for the site is likely to contribute value, especially based on such vague metrics as "ability to pay $50" and "student", runs the risk of being elitism for the sake of elitism. For some, $50 is enough of a barrier that they'll only sign up if they're especially interested (a sign that they'll contribute value); for others, it's little more than an impulse purchase. As for students, I agree that the site should avoid favoring students over people who don't go to college, but as a rather biased student (and backer), I contest the sentiment that students can't contribute value or need to be "managed" more than your average slightly older entrepreneur. ;p Even though age probably weakly correlates with quality, the goal of the site should not be to slightly increase average quality, but, if anything, to ensure that the highest quality users, the right edge of the bell curve, are there, which exclusionary principles will discourage.
Of course, the $50 is not actually some kind of proof of relevance but actual funding for the operation of the site; it can't be avoided. But I think it should mostly be considered a necessary evil, and there should be a focus on letting people who are unwilling to pay it but are strongly interested in the community get in anyway, such as with a sponsorship system.
Re: App.net funded with $500,000.
#163Earlier 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…
Slightly OT, but since you mentioned it:
> "there's a reason XCode is free now"
...I think anyone who has used XCode 4 for any substantial project would probably say the reason XCode is free is because charging for it would be adding insult to injury.
Re: App.net funded with $500,000.
#164While I'm in favor of the concept behind this, I have one deeply concerning question that I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone else ask here: Why is it called App.net? The first 4 or 5 articles I saw about it, I ignored completely because I assumed it was some sort of app (web/mobile/whatever) framework, not a social network. They talk about the users being the customers (versus advertisers), but the name of the servi…
It was previously a site (from the same owner) for showcasing apps, e.g.: http://app.net/uberhype. I'm not sure what happens to those pages now, presumably they're grandfathered in as "new app.net" accounts.
Re: App.net funded with $500,000.
#165Not that I'm accusing Dalton of doing this, but when croudfunding without using a platform like kickstarter, it might be too easy to fake backer numbers in order to meet the goal or inflate popularity. What this means for the future: Companies will announce croudfunding and then fake amazing numbers in order to appear popular and gain lots of press. I can see the headline now: "ACME Software raises $3 million in firs…
https://alpha.app.net/dalton/post/32618 "We are using Stripe, so it's easy to audit." - Dalton Caldwell
I'd like to audit it right now. How can I do so?
(The point is: it's not easy to audit. Not that I actually care one way or the other.)
Re: App.net funded with $500,000.
#166I'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
As I read your post I realized app.net is probably for me.
It's like lower Manhattan or parts of San Francisco. People who think the rents are ridiculous shouldn't live there anyway; it's not for them.
Re: App.net funded with $500,000.
#167I'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.
The launch of an alpha product definitely helped.
Re: App.net funded with $500,000.
#168The 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…
That approach worked great for Quora early on.
Re: App.net funded with $500,000.
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's going to prevent people using app.net from talking about things you don't care about? There is nothing that forces you to only talk about tech and related, as far as I can tell. The reason this doesn't happen on HN is because the topics are agreed on and moderated.
In general there are 3 solutions involving 'moderation': 1) self moderation: Google Plus has circles which you can theoretically use to share specific topics only with circles that you know to be passionate about them. Requires manual work to setup the right circles and people rarely do it. 2) manual moderation: Hacker News uses pg's time and some admin/moderator supervision to trim unwanted topics. Requires manual w…
"share specific topics only with circles that you know to be passionate about them"
Sounds wrong, doesn't it? The circles sharing model is backwards-- why should I have to make guesses about what other people are interested about?
I've written about this on a previous App.net HN thread (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4304061, core excerpt = "I want to subscribe to that person on a "coding" stream, and leave the "personal" stream alone. People are multi-dimensional beings with many orthogonal interests; Consider giving them multiple stdouts.") and App.net PM said it was duly noted. I.e. it will be ignored, and the site is destined to be a noisy mess just like everything else that currently exists, except it will also cost money.
Re: App.net funded with $500,000.
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really disagree with you, but you've editorialized door number 1 to make the answer more obvious. Door number 1 is a different experience (because of the points listed in the post you replied to), which may be any of "slightly nicer", "slightly less nice", "way nicer", or ????. The point is that it will be different , whether that difference provides more or less value than ad-supported alternatives remains t…
The big thing that I can see is "no ads", which would make it slightly nicer. I think we can presume that if it, say, just plain sucks, there's nothing even to discuss! So for the sake of argument it's going to be 'better'. You're right that it could be way better - but Facebook isn't completely blind to its users desires - they could likely copy a lot of what makes it good. Outside of 'no ads', of course. So I wrote…
Facebook often makes choices (like the default security settings) that are obviously not in the users' best interests. Twitter has a proven track record of using policy to ruin services built with its API. These are the kinds of things app.net hopes to avoid. I think.
It is a good idea, although I don't see myself using it.