111–120 of 130 posts
Dalton stated he will return all the money if he does not raise the full amount. Now why do I have the feeling that there is going to be a annex to that statement in a few days? He'll probably figure something out that allows him to (be allowed to) keep the money raised.
He is by no means a private figure -- a move like that would certainly destroy his reputation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the real bubble is people ignoring the existence of status.net and identi.ca, and the reasons why they never took off as alternatives to twitter. Status.net has evolved into a private twitter for companies but the identica service still runs, still has a user base, and is everything you need for an alternative to twitter.
Random Canadian company vs. a well-connected Silicon Valley founder would potentially be sufficient. Or 2012 vs. 2009.
You mean as a reason to choose the former, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another model that might be worth trying is pay to send, free to receive. So if people just want to follow Scoble, let Scoble pay for 'em.
Are you suggesting users pay per follower? You've essentially turned it into an advertising platform; which gets us right back where we started only worse (can't get influence at all unless you pay for it)
Oh no. This is not how we Bayes. I don't have the mental energy to translate these natural language statements into statements of probability and actually apply Bayes' theorem, but I'm pretty sure if I did, the result would be a lot less inspiring of confidence than "only a 5.7% chance of failure!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I listen to the podcasts of precisely six people . Four of those six people have already voiced support for join.app.net ((Dan Benjamin, John Grueber, Marco Armenti, John Siracusa). I expect the other two would join fairly quickly, and, given the "open" nature of join.app.net, I expect anybody who wanted cross-posting from twitter over to join.app.net, wouldn't have much difficulty. Just have the client post on both…
Just a heads up - it's Marco Arment (no i on the end) and John Gruber (no umlaut, so no transliteration of ü to ue).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I listen to the podcasts of precisely six people . Four of those six people have already voiced support for join.app.net ((Dan Benjamin, John Grueber, Marco Armenti, John Siracusa). I expect the other two would join fairly quickly, and, given the "open" nature of join.app.net, I expect anybody who wanted cross-posting from twitter over to join.app.net, wouldn't have much difficulty. Just have the client post on both…
Why not to use Quora? Top users and no ads! ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could someone who has an answer to these concerns post a link for the rest of us? For instance, what restricts app.net from limiting access to the API in the future, or from upping the price severely once it's gained more traction?
If app.net turned evil people would stop paying and then app.net would go broke. That's the theory, anyway.
Also FB is making $1 per year per user atm (storing photos,messages and heaps of other stuff). Why does dalton need $50 per year to store 140 character message?
Edit: Turns out there is a charter called "core values"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If app.net turned evil people would stop paying and then app.net would go broke. That's the theory, anyway.
Seems like a pretty crappy theory actually. Why are thoes things not built in an unchangeable charter (or something like it). Also FB is making $1 per year per user atm (storing photos,messages and heaps of other stuff). Why does dalton need $50 per year to store 140 character message? Edit: Turns out there is a charter called "core values"
Regarding your comparison to FB: price is certainly not just about cost; it can also be about establishing the right signals to potential customers and non-customers. In this case, I suspect the signal is "if $50 doesn't seem like a great deal for this product, you're not the target customer".
Aside from attracting a particular kind of customer just by setting a price at all (e.g., eliminating huge swaths of automated spammers), this can potentially create a positive network effect. If you're someone who wants to follow a social news feed, which society sounds better: the one where everyone involved cared enough to put up $50, or the society where botnets can easily create thousands of accounts per day?
There's a lot to be said about free-for-all ecosystems; but they're not the only solution.