The Great App.net Mistake
wired.com
The Great App.net Mistake
1–10 of 70 posts
Re: The Great App.net Mistake
#2In other words, normal people that use Twitter or Instagram still have no clue what App.net is and the early adopters of App.net will eventually get tired of it.
Re: The Great App.net Mistake
#3[deleted]
Re: The Great App.net Mistake
#4I read the whole article and never discovered the mistake. Did I miss something? It sounds like app.net is doing fine.
Re: The Great App.net Mistake
#5I read the whole article and never discovered the mistake. Did I miss something? It sounds like app.net is doing fine.
"Alpha was the first product out of the gate, launched in reaction to something Twitter did. Subsequently, much development was in building Twitter-like things. So its little wonder that people associate App.net with, well, Twitter. And once people form an idea of what a product is, it becomes very hard to change that idea. "
Re: The Great App.net Mistake
#6I read the whole article and never discovered the mistake. Did I miss something? It sounds like app.net is doing fine.
"Alpha was the first product out of the gate, launched in reaction to something Twitter did. Subsequently, much development was in building Twitter-like things. So its little wonder that people associate App.net with, well, Twitter. And once people form an idea of what a product is, it becomes very hard to change that idea. "
To be more explicit, the mistake is on the part of the people with the wrong idea of what App.net is. At least that's how I took it.
Re: The Great App.net Mistake
#7I read the whole article and never discovered the mistake. Did I miss something? It sounds like app.net is doing fine.
"Alpha was the first product out of the gate, launched in reaction to something Twitter did. Subsequently, much development was in building Twitter-like things. So its little wonder that people associate App.net with, well, Twitter. And once people form an idea of what a product is, it becomes very hard to change that idea. "
It is like Twitter, except it's like Twitter circa 2008/2009. It is what (many of) the early Twitter users though Twitter was and what they wanted it to become. The problem is that
1) Most people weren't around during those times.
2) Those who were have either forgotten what it was like or have come to terms with what Twitter is now.
Re: The Great App.net Mistake
#8I read the whole article and never discovered the mistake. Did I miss something? It sounds like app.net is doing fine.
"Alpha was the first product out of the gate, launched in reaction to something Twitter did. Subsequently, much development was in building Twitter-like things. So its little wonder that people associate App.net with, well, Twitter. And once people form an idea of what a product is, it becomes very hard to change that idea. "
That is a shame. 90% of the criticisms I've seen of App.net were mocking it for being 'an open source twitter' and completely ignored its ambitions to encompass general social network features.
Re: The Great App.net Mistake
#9From the beginning I've quietly predicted that if App.net is ever going to succeed, they will eventually end up going with a more traditional business model where they charge developers for the capacity their applications use (in my mind, they would end up resembling Firebase).
Dalton will write up some charismatic blog post about why this is the right move, and how it was really part of the plan all along. Some people will eat it up; others will call bullshit; and the world will keep turning.
Re: The Great App.net Mistake
#10I read the whole article and never discovered the mistake. Did I miss something? It sounds like app.net is doing fine.
"Alpha was the first product out of the gate, launched in reaction to something Twitter did. Subsequently, much development was in building Twitter-like things. So its little wonder that people associate App.net with, well, Twitter. And once people form an idea of what a product is, it becomes very hard to change that idea. "
They wanted to build an open, paid version of the Twitter API/ecosystem. But the value of the Twitter API lay in the access to their 100 million+ users, and all the valuable social data generated by those 100 million+ users. No amount of "open infrastructure", no matter how clever can ever replace that. It's like buying 1000 data centers in every country, and building an entire system that can handle a billion concurrent users, and saying "Yeah, we can take on Facebook with this", then realize the hard part was getting users, not scaling the infrastructure.