[deleted]
The money part of App.net is a red herring
91–100 of 108 posts
Re: The money part of App.net is a red herring
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Because being a platform/ an API as a service is its's publicly stated goal. 2. The clear business model of charging users makes that goal viable and feasible. So far, I have no reason to doubt him. Do you? BTW, I have no idea if it will be wildly successful. However, I'm certain interesting things will come out of it.
Neither of those points safeguard you from it turning into something other than what YOU want. That's the point I'm trying to make. I don't have a specific reason for doubt, but I don't have evidence for confidence either. I'm 100% behind a paid API as a service for the purpose of financial sustainability. But I don't think that's what has actually been purchased by the first batch of customers. They paid for a dream…
There are three factors that I think lend credibility in this case:
1) Dalton's founding vision is strongly principalled. This is what will give the company the strength to battle against the temptation to stripmine the value of the company the way that Twitter is doing with their developer-hostile stance.
2) The fact that 10k+ people put down a significant payment up front mean that there is a buy-in and critical mass to the service that mean it will have some value from day one, even just to users, and even if it is impossible for it to completely replace Twitter.
3) The money in the bank means there is both means and pressure for App.net to be developed quickly.
None of that is a guarantee, but I think it's a strong foundation for success.
Re: The money part of App.net is a red herring
#93My current suspicion is that Dalton has no idea how to build what he wants, in fact he doesn't even know what the thing he wants is . So he's fanning the flames on this discussion to let everyone else come up with something for him.
"Dalton has no idea how to build what he wants" How do you correlate that with the mostly-functional alpha which already has 90% of what I use twitter for? I wasn't expecting anything functional for 5-6 months, and, as it exists, it's already mostly there.
what's i saw is just a prototype but nothing close to '90% done' like you said. app.net just has only 10,000+ backers at the moment. they probably haven't done any thing about scalability yet.
Re: The money part of App.net is a red herring
#94I personally think that this post does not belong to the top of HN for the mere fact that it says nothing. Writing a blogpost speculating about the motivations behind App.net, behind people backing it, the result, the lesson about the post speaking of the fear of money, about how app.net will turnout. Just a bunch of negative speculation bundled together and called a blogpost then to go on to the comments and boast a…
I thought I agreed with you, because I read this post thinking it was a reply to the recent article about app.net's fee-based service not being inherently superior to twitter's ad-based service. When I read the post it was actually a response to, it does make sense, but it isn't clearly stated. If I may attempt to restate, the argument is as follows: Ilya wrote an article criticizing those who are reluctant to ask us…
I get the argument you are making and you have restated OP's post in a more respectful manner at least towards the donors.
As to App.net being more of a cause than a product, I disagree. App.net's form is formless. That users are projecting their hopes on the API is the idea. The difference is the users (mainly devs) are being empowered to build out those hopes.
The Twitter interface is just a use case of a realtime API. People waiting for Dalton to build the killer use case have missed the point. Look to the chaps that are paying $100/ year.
Re: The money part of App.net is a red herring
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought I agreed with you, because I read this post thinking it was a reply to the recent article about app.net's fee-based service not being inherently superior to twitter's ad-based service. When I read the post it was actually a response to, it does make sense, but it isn't clearly stated. If I may attempt to restate, the argument is as follows: Ilya wrote an article criticizing those who are reluctant to ask us…
I get the argument you are making and you have restated OP's post in a more respectful manner at least towards the donors. As to App.net being more of a cause than a product, I disagree. App.net's form is formless. That users are projecting their hopes on the API is the idea. The difference is the users (mainly devs) are being empowered to build out those hopes. The Twitter interface is just a use case of a realtime…
The internet's form is formless though, too. The successful part so far of this is a the rallying of the troops, at least a large core group of tech community folk.
Re: The money part of App.net is a red herring
#96Not saying this applies to app.net (because I refuse to pay attention to the story), but I'd like to coin a phrase that I imagine may become popular soon: "'strap and dump". There, claim staken.
Sounds similar to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump
Re: The money part of App.net is a red herring
#97My current suspicion is that Dalton has no idea how to build what he wants, in fact he doesn't even know what the thing he wants is . So he's fanning the flames on this discussion to let everyone else come up with something for him.
I was once tasked with building a web app for a real estate company. The ultimate stake holder (can't remember his title) told me as we were wrapping up a requirements gathering meeting: I don't know what I want, but I'll know it when I see it. I was still too green to know that I should have run for my life after that statement.
Even when customers think they know what they want, they usually don't. They lack imagination and an analytic mind.
Customer wants A, B and C. You point out that A and B collide, and offer a solution, D. Customer insists on A, B and C. You tell him again. Customer insists on A, B and C. You create A, B and C. Customer realizes that A and B collide and that A, B and C are really not working as imagined. Customer blames you. You present D again. Customer caves in and orders D, as a replacement for A and B. Customer blames the additional cost on you and is unhappy.
Customer wants H, I and J. You tell him that he wants M, N and O. But that M, N and O cost twice as much as H, I and J. Customer is furious. You want the business. So you build H, I and J. Customer realizes it's not working. Customer blames you and is unhappy.
Customer wants X. You ask him why. Because of Q. You realize that the customer would need E instead of X. You offer X but you build E instead, because it's possible within the same budget and time window. You relabel E to X. Customer is happy. His vision worked.
Re: The money part of App.net is a red herring
#98Developers overpaying for app.net:
Apple iOS Registered Developer - $99/yr - TAM: 365M iOS devices
Google Play for Developers - $25 one-time fee - TAM: 400M Android devices
App.net developer tier - $100/yr - TAM: 10K+ members
Re: The money part of App.net is a red herring
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Because being a platform/ an API as a service is its's publicly stated goal. 2. The clear business model of charging users makes that goal viable and feasible. So far, I have no reason to doubt him. Do you? BTW, I have no idea if it will be wildly successful. However, I'm certain interesting things will come out of it.
Neither of those points safeguard you from it turning into something other than what YOU want. That's the point I'm trying to make. I don't have a specific reason for doubt, but I don't have evidence for confidence either. I'm 100% behind a paid API as a service for the purpose of financial sustainability. But I don't think that's what has actually been purchased by the first batch of customers. They paid for a dream…
I get the difference between buying a finished product and helping fund the prospect of one you believe in. It's speculation with the return measured in non-monetary means. A point that could've been made in a tweet, on Twitter even.
Re: The money part of App.net is a red herring
#100I still don't get App.net. There's no possible way anyone outside of this tiny dev community will actually pay of a service like Twitter, yet there's no way for it to become actually relevant if it's just another echo chamber for startup hipsters
This is zero-sum thinking. App.net doesn't have to be as big as Twitter to be successful. There are many pay services to compare it to. Metafilter is one.
Yup, they don't have to be big. Then what's the point of developers to develop on top of app.net API while their user base is small? Less revenue, more "freedom" to develop?