Why startups should care about App.net • Hacker News Board

Re: Why startups should care about App.net

#11

Post by romain_dardour » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 3:53 PM UTC

Making end users pay is a huge barrier to entry for startups. Not all can afford it. And App.net is there to play zookeeper, and could shut them down if they do anything out of bounds. For users this is great but for startups it's hugely dangerous. So app.net has a marketplace problem : to overcome this they need to be huge (think Apple App Store huge) and to be App Store huge they need the startups and users.

Disclaimer : We build hull.io. we think that developers need stay in control of the data and responsible for themselves for this to work.

Re: Why startups should care about App.net

#12

Post by minimaxir » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 3:54 PM UTC

lkrubner wrote: post #7

I find people's attitudes on HN difficult to decipher on this issue. Run this search on Google: posthaven site:news.ycombinator.com the full URL: https://www.google.com/search?q=posthaven+site%3Anews.ycombi... and for App.net: https://www.google.com/search?q=posthaven+site%3Anews.ycombi... On HN, those 2 sites are roughly equal, or possibly PostHaven gets a little bit more attention. Why is that? Both sites offer mic…

Because Posthaven has the Posterous branding and endorsement of the Posterous founder.

Brand identity and switching cost is a hard thing for most people to overcome. It's why Blogger still exists. And then there's the chicken-and-egg problem that the former Posterous had already solved.

Re: Why startups should care about App.net

#13

Post by matt2000 » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 4:00 PM UTC

There's a bit of a chicken and egg problem here: If app.net was already well established among users then it'd be great to tap into that userbase, and users would be looking for more apps. Unfortunately, before that happens it's pretty hard to imagine that an app developer would be able or want to introduce their users to both 1) their app, and 2) that they need to pay for a separate service in addition. Sounds like it'd be complicated and confusing to users. Perhaps if alpha.app.net were to take off that would solve the problem, but since they're focusing on a platform and not the app, that doesn't seem as likely.

Re: Why startups should care about App.net

#14

Post by jonathanjaeger » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 4:00 PM UTC

lkrubner wrote: post #7

I find people's attitudes on HN difficult to decipher on this issue. Run this search on Google: posthaven site:news.ycombinator.com the full URL: https://www.google.com/search?q=posthaven+site%3Anews.ycombi... and for App.net: https://www.google.com/search?q=posthaven+site%3Anews.ycombi... On HN, those 2 sites are roughly equal, or possibly PostHaven gets a little bit more attention. Why is that? Both sites offer mic…

Posthaven came out of the ashes of Posterous, which a lot of people on HN used (including me). Right now I switched to Posthaven from Posterous because the transition was seamless. Add to the fact Garry Tan is obviously well-known in the YC community, so that gets the discussion a little more attention.

App.net started with a certain positioning, not as a similar product to the Posterous or Posthavens of the world, but as a mission in how it would treat its customers (at least that's how Dalton Caldwell framed it in the intro videos). Although app.net has changed over time, I think a lot of people on HN view it with skepticism because of the lofty goal of moving users away from Twitter or Facebook. I think people couldn't bet on the fact that a critical mass of people would move from those sites simply because they make their money off of advertising dollars.

Re: Why startups should care about App.net

#15

Post by PaulHoule » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 4:02 PM UTC

It's more like Salesforce.com than it is like Twitter in terms of business model -- that's interesting.

Will it work though?

SFDC started out with a product that had clear enough value to sell seats at $60+ a month and then there was a large market for apps built on top of their platform. And note that if you sell somebody an app in Salesforce, you're adding something to their recurring bill.

App.net sounds like an "all you can eat" service in terms of back-end hardware and software, a bit like cable TV, in fact, it's at the low end of that price range.

It may be very possible to build something interesting on here but so far all I see are a number of instant messaging clients, particularly for the Mac.

Show me a tool that can be used to build a social system that gets people to do something that they otherwise don't do then I'll be impressed!

Re: Why startups should care about App.net

#16

Post by TomAnthony » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 4:15 PM UTC

I didn't realise until this article that Alpha != App.net. Now that I do, a couple of problems spring to mind:

* For startups, user acquisition often remains the biggest hurdle to success. Here they have to sting the user for a monthly subscription even to try the app. Asking people to open their wallets is going to massively reduce the people a startup get through the doors.

* There are billions of active users on Facebook. It is the de-facto platform for interaction for most people. Why does the user want to change? Saying "but now you won't be the product, the platform will be" won't make clear to most users what advantage their might be. They'll respond "so I have to pay to be connected to less friends?".

* The two above problems are cyclical and exasperate one another.

I like the idea, I just think there are a lot of problems that are going to get in its way.

Re: Why startups should care about App.net

#17

Post by jeena » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 4:37 PM UTC

I still think in the long run Tent is the superior approach. App.net will do what every company does, and it doesn't matter how unevil they seem.

Open protocols like SMTP, HTTP, XMPP and Tent are the way to go in the future.

Re: Why startups should care about App.net

#18

Post by vineet » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 4:56 PM UTC

lkrubner wrote: post #7

I find people's attitudes on HN difficult to decipher on this issue. Run this search on Google: posthaven site:news.ycombinator.com the full URL: https://www.google.com/search?q=posthaven+site%3Anews.ycombi... and for App.net: https://www.google.com/search?q=posthaven+site%3Anews.ycombi... On HN, those 2 sites are roughly equal, or possibly PostHaven gets a little bit more attention. Why is that? Both sites offer mic…

PostHaven's value proposition is much clearer (to me). They are focusing on content creators and are building a site that will remain around for sometime. I don't see a potential user even wanting apps on it. The site is ready today.

App.net's value proposition is just not clear. I can't think of a reason to sign up for other that the face that it will be great someday.

Re: Why startups should care about App.net

#19

Post by jokull » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 5:09 PM UTC

TomAnthony wrote: post #16

I didn't realise until this article that Alpha != App.net. Now that I do, a couple of problems spring to mind: * For startups, user acquisition often remains the biggest hurdle to success. Here they have to sting the user for a monthly subscription even to try the app. Asking people to open their wallets is going to massively reduce the people a startup get through the doors. * There are billions of active users on F…

Exactly. I’m afried App.net will die soon if they can’t figure out how to appeal to anyone trying to build a business (not hobbyists making free apps, because charging your users to create an account has be a negligible part of your value proposition). The only way to fix this problem is by having a generous free tier or by allowing the app pulling in new users to remain free forever, for those users you brought in through your app.

As an app creator, even in this situation, where the user gets a free ride in your app because she’s a first time App.net user, you’re asking a lot from the user. When user acquisition and retention is your bread and butter, placing a huge level of complexity at the signup step, explaining what the hell an App.net account is, it’s basically strangling the acquisition part, and you never, ever, want to do that.

Taking a step back, what problems are they solving anyway? Shorten time to market for app makers? Because social app plumbing is getting pretty cheap and easy to pull off at scale with IaaS. Besides ending up with something very limited. Using App.net to build your app must add value, either for the creator, or the user. I’m failing to see how it does either. Unless, maybe, if App.net login is an optional part of your app that could lover the already in-place pricing scheme for all users (failing to see when this would make sense, but it’s possibly I guess).

Conclusion: Ask yourself, what app in the past 5 years, could have been pulled off, logistically, using app.net plumbing?

Re: Why startups should care about App.net

#20

Post by comex » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 5:28 PM UTC

lkrubner wrote: post #7

I find people's attitudes on HN difficult to decipher on this issue. Run this search on Google: posthaven site:news.ycombinator.com the full URL: https://www.google.com/search?q=posthaven+site%3Anews.ycombi... and for App.net: https://www.google.com/search?q=posthaven+site%3Anews.ycombi... On HN, those 2 sites are roughly equal, or possibly PostHaven gets a little bit more attention. Why is that? Both sites offer mic…

On the contrary, my memory is that while Posthaven had a few front page posts as it launched and has since been mostly left alone, app.net has had a constant barrage of them during its "kickstarting" and afterward. Your own Google link seems to bear that out. There are certainly commenters in every thread dismissive of app.net - probably more than of Posthaven, since where Posthaven's entire reason for existence is to have a modest and obviously sustainable business model, app.net's goals are somewhat unfocused but extremely lofty - but there are many praising it in every thread.

What does Posthaven even have to do with this article?