Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

App.net funded with $500,000.

join.app.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 211 posts

Re: App.net funded with $500,000.

#121

Post by eoghan »

natrius wrote: post #116
eoghan wrote: post #110

The 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…

I don't see how "Twitter for _______" is a good idea. I can make "Twitter for _______" by following the right people. The idea that Twitter's user base is too broad doesn't make any sense to me.

You can only follow "the right people", but they'll still talk about things you're uninterested in. In addition, you'll also have people following you who have different interests, who will start irrelevant conversations with you.

Why does Hacker News exist? And other special interest web forums, Facebook groups, mailing lists? Who do interest groups hold meetups? People with shared interests get MASSIVE value from highly focused gatherings and conversations. And Twitter right now is anything but focused.

Re: App.net funded with $500,000.

#122

Post by natrius »

w1ntermute wrote: post #115
natrius wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sort of service depends on network effects. I suspect that 90+% of Twitter and Facebook users aren't willing to pay $50 to get rid of ads. If even Google is having trouble getting traction with a social networking product, I don't see why anyone is confident that a social network users have to pay for will end up with a large enough user base to be useful.

Like unimpressive said, there is a big upside to the filtering effect that there being a price will create. I don't use Facebook or Twitter because there's too much noise on there and I don't want to offend people I know who are very nice individuals, but share aspects of their life I don't care about, by defriending/unfollowing them. Maybe App.net will nicely take care of that. I would definitely like to see a socia…

I don't unfriend people on Facebook. I add them to the special Acquaintances group that removes people from your news feed without letting people know. I only see posts from people who I've chosen to see.

I unfollow people on Twitter when I don't care to see what they're posting. Most people don't use the tools that notify users when people unfollow them, so it's not a big deal. Even for the ones that notice, I just don't care. I don't use Twitter for friends; I use it for interests. If you're not posting about my interests with an acceptable signal to noise ratio, you're unfollowed.

Using App.net to filter out people you don't want to hear from won't work unless you think the value of ones posts correlates with their propensity to pay. I doubt that's the case, and you're definitely going to filter out plenty of worthwhile content that people post on Twitter.

It seems to me that people want App.net to succeed regardless of the likelihood that it will solve their problems. This is a good position for App.net to be in, but I don't understand it.

Re: App.net funded with $500,000.

#123

Post by natrius »

eoghan wrote: post #121
natrius wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how "Twitter for _______" is a good idea. I can make "Twitter for _______" by following the right people. The idea that Twitter's user base is too broad doesn't make any sense to me.

You can only follow "the right people", but they'll still talk about things you're uninterested in. In addition, you'll also have people following you who have different interests, who will start irrelevant conversations with you. Why does Hacker News exist? And other special interest web forums, Facebook groups, mailing lists? Who do interest groups hold meetups? People with shared interests get MASSIVE value from h…

Okay, this is a great point. However, it doesn't sound like what App.net is building.

Re: App.net funded with $500,000.

#124

Post by natrius »

anu_gupta wrote: post #120
natrius wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This indicates that you think Twitter is stupid, and will make their product suck so much that people will stop using it. I don't see any evidence for that. Did the promise of ad revenue make Google destroy its search engine?

Twitter's success is a function of the emergent behaviour of users and applications built off the platform (including, but not limited to 3rd party clients). They're now trying to freeze innovation and homogenise us. That's the real killer, not the ads (although the ads are shit too). Sure, it'll be ok for many people in the future. But it probably won't be the Twitter that I and others want. What's wrong with trying…

There's nothing wrong with trying App.net. Quite the contrary. I just don't understand why this community doesn't seem to be applying its characteristic skepticism to this idea.

Re: App.net funded with $500,000.

#125

Post by nostromo »

eoghan wrote: post #110

The 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…

> and being distributed amongst the segregated tech startup community will prevent so many different types of people from using it

For what it's worth, when I joined Twitter it was also a tech ghetto. Kevin Rose, Leo Laporte, Guy Kawasaki, and Veronica Belmont were all in the top 10 most followed accounts.

Re: App.net funded with $500,000.

#126

Post by joering2 »

dannyr wrote: post #90
natrius wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Do you want to be the product (facebook, twitter) or the customer (app.net)?" Where's the evidence that suggests that millions of people care about this distinction enough to pay for it?

Recent decisions made by Twitter are all about optimizing the site for advertising revenues. I don't think Twitter has any other choice because they chose the free path from the start. I highly doubt Twitter would suddenly switch to a premium/freemium model. While Twitter has empowered revolutions, I think the quality of the community has degraded though. I believe that if people pay for being part of a community, pe…

> Recent decisions made by Twitter are all about optimizing the site for advertising revenues.

Sure, well, lets all hope that app.net will not run out of subscription fees. My take is that in a situation where IF this gets more popular and costs to sustain its life-pulse will grow, its plausible Dalton will have to choose between #1 shutting it down if not enough money flows in (and piss off all who still want to contribute and don't care that others won't pay), or #2 find a different way of bringing the money in. Let's hope its nor advertising.

> If something is free, people just won't take care of it.

Sure, that's why the Hackers News group is built upon 99% bots and is constantly filled in with spammers and haters. That's why every day you have high quality content uploaded to YouTube, for free to watch.

People don't care whether something is free or not; people care whether that something brings them any value, then they look at the price, whether they can afford it or not.

Re: App.net funded with $500,000.

#127

Post by joering2 »

mcantelon wrote: post #97
zcam wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you could just install AdBlock. The argument about privacy doesn't really makes sense either, it is still a private company/product.

True. One advantage of a paid social network I haven't heard mentioned is the fact spam likely won't exist as it does on Twitter.

What made you assume that just because app will be subscription-based, there will be large enough portion of that $$ cheddar that will make app less spammy then, for example, Twitter?

Spammer pay thousands of dollars for fresh emailing lists, simply because enough uneducated people will get cough in their nets. You think they won't be able to afford $50?

Ultimately, its up to Dalton and his executive skills (is he going to be the CEO?) to build a company's structure and split the fee the smart way (have a decent anti-spam team) to keep the site fun and clean [of spam].

Re: App.net funded with $500,000.

#128

Post by davidw »

achompas wrote: post #112
dkrich wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate the response, but that doesn't really answer the question of what the service provides that Facebook or Twitter doesn't. Are ads in and of themselves really a huge problem? I don't find myself often annoyed by them. Now if there were a systemic change to the service because you didn't have to alter the experience for users to generate ad revenue, then I begin to understand. However if this is the idea, t…

Again, you answered in your first 3 sentences. The propsed absence of advertising on app.net will change how users interact with the service, as well as how the service grows. Twitter and Facebook wants to market to their users. This now influences all of their product decisions! Any changes to the service aim to increase CPM. I won't debate whether that makes FB/Twitter better or worse, but they are fundamentally di…

The question is: what is most valuable to most people?

* Having a slightly nicer experience

or

* Having all their friends and potential friends on the same service

For a social service, door number 2 (positive network externalities) would be my guess.

Re: App.net funded with $500,000.

#129

Post by jschlesser »

Its not about destroying or replacing twitter or fb. Thats unlikely and not the goal. Its about new uses. T and FB have defined their contexts and rules. The infrastructure may look very similar but the universe of contexts and possibilities for non T and FB contexts is the point. The space of uses outside of T and FB is vast when publicity and ad focused mining isnt the core driver of business. FB and T have decided to compete for belly fat ads, thats the real shame. However they are both still revolutionary in terms of societal impact, they are just going to coerce their usage to fit their business model. Egyptian protesters and new moms posting baby photos could care less about belly fat ads. I truly sincerely hope both services find a more relevant way so that all models flourish.

Re: App.net funded with $500,000.

#130

Post by unimpressive »

natrius wrote: post #113
unimpressive wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect that 90+% of Twitter and Facebook users aren't willing to pay $50 to get rid of ads. Yes. But I have no interest in talking to +90% of the people on Twitter and Facebook. The success of app.net won't depend on how many total users sign up over the services lifetime. It will depend more on how interesting the people who ultimately sign up are. A lot of it is perception, right now twitter is something of a…

"It will depend more on how interesting the people who ultimately sign up are." I don't see how this is true. If my friends aren't on App.net, I'll still use Facebook. If the people who discuss the issues that I tend to tweet about aren't on App.net, I'll still use Twitter. What will I then gain by using App.net as well, especially since most App.net users will probably syndicate their posts to Twitter?

I just wanted to let you know that I do intend on answering your question, but am currently trying to evaluate if I've stumbled onto a point that is hard to articulate without sounding stupid, or just stupid. I'll ping you when I resolve this problem.
Post reply on HN