Live data from Hacker News

Here's Why People Are Backing App.net

readwriteweb.com

31–40 of 46 posts

Re: Here's Why People Are Backing App.net

#31
post #9

I backed this almost immediately, and expected them to be a lot closer to the goal than they are now (still more than $300,000 off with only seven days to go). I'm very surprised with the apparent lack of resonance with the idea from people around here. So what are some of the reasons you aren't backing?

To me the app.net approach is no taking it far enough!

I would absolutely back a p2p twitter like service and also pay for the "official" client and it's updates.

But just another corporate owned service...naaa

Re: Here's Why People Are Backing App.net

#32
(I'm saying this from a regular user's perspective and not developer): First of all, what's boggling my mind about this app.net thingy is the vague pitch and description. They should explain themselves first as "a paid social network where users own their own data and without any ad disturbance". Then they can elaborate more stuff. I really had hard time to comprehend the importance of this yet-another-social network and spent a lot of time reading others' people blog/HN posts just to understand what it is all about.

Secondly, I see why they charge for it for access; I mean, we are customers when we pay for it. I get it. However, I still don't think people are willing to pay for it. Social network will forever (well may be not, but we'll see) be free because when the stuff is free, we can be sure that we can allure our close friends, relatives, or whoever in our circles to join the social network, thus the social network itself. Even more so when regular users are pretty content with the existing free social networks we have. If there are less users in a social network, the less motivation any developer to develop application on its platform.

Re: Here's Why People Are Backing App.net

#33

App.net strikes me as a half-measure. It's still a centralized system with one company acting ultimately as a gatekeeper. I want a twitter that acts more like email, on open, distributed systems that leave me in full ownership of my own content. I see very little reason for something like Twitter to go through a centralized party this way.

> It's still a centralized system with one company acting ultimately as a gatekeeper.

USENET was pretty decentralized. If that could me made to update faster, it could be the basis for a decentralized Twitter-like service.

Re: Here's Why People Are Backing App.net

#34

App.net strikes me as a half-measure. It's still a centralized system with one company acting ultimately as a gatekeeper. I want a twitter that acts more like email, on open, distributed systems that leave me in full ownership of my own content. I see very little reason for something like Twitter to go through a centralized party this way.

I agree. StatusNet (Identica, etc) already does this.

Re: Here's Why People Are Backing App.net

#35
post #9

I backed this almost immediately, and expected them to be a lot closer to the goal than they are now (still more than $300,000 off with only seven days to go). I'm very surprised with the apparent lack of resonance with the idea from people around here. So what are some of the reasons you aren't backing?

The problem with App.net (as it's currently described, anyway) is that it's halfway between what people who love Twitter want and what people who hate Twitter want, which makes it less than an obvious sale for both.

People who love Twitter want... Twitter. App.net doesn't interoperate with Twitter; it's another, separate silo. There's no guarantees that your Twitter friends will move to App.net with you, which limits the appeal if you live in Twitter.

People who hate Twitter hate it for a variety of reasons. App.net doesn't address most of these. If you hate Twitter because they kneecapped their developers, guess what, there's no guarantees App.net won't kneecap their developers five years from now either. If you hate Twitter because it's a centralized, proprietary system, guess what, App.net is centralized and proprietary too. If you hate Twitter because of its scaling problems, guess what, there's no guarantees that App.net (which, as noted, is as centralized as Twitter is) will be any better at dealing with that stuff. And so forth.

Personally, I fall into the latter category; I have lots of problems with Twitter. But nothing about App.net screams to me that here is the solution to those problems. Instead it just feels like Twitter with a different owner and a subscription fee -- which are just about the only ways at this point you could take the idea of Twitter and make it less appealing to me.

Re: Here's Why People Are Backing App.net

#36
post #9

I backed this almost immediately, and expected them to be a lot closer to the goal than they are now (still more than $300,000 off with only seven days to go). I'm very surprised with the apparent lack of resonance with the idea from people around here. So what are some of the reasons you aren't backing?

The ads I get on twitter and Facebook are not a dealbreaker for me. I dont understand how its an improvement over either service with the exception that there are no ads and will likely protect my data better. (Thats another issue im not particularly worried about).

Re: Here's Why People Are Backing App.net

#37
post #2

They could run it from a non-profit instead of a private company. Would be an interesting experiment!

How many instances of groups of very smart people with a great product vision and the technical ability to deliver it are there that set up non-profit companies to give us all their brain-child for free? I'd prefer it if they wanted to do it in a non-profit and give all the excess revenue to 3rd party devs but this is much better than waiting for a unicorn to turn up.

Re: Here's Why People Are Backing App.net

#38

App.net strikes me as a half-measure. It's still a centralized system with one company acting ultimately as a gatekeeper. I want a twitter that acts more like email, on open, distributed systems that leave me in full ownership of my own content. I see very little reason for something like Twitter to go through a centralized party this way.

> It's still a centralized system with one company acting ultimately as a gatekeeper. USENET was pretty decentralized. If that could me made to update faster, it could be the basis for a decentralized Twitter-like service.

The "everyone caches everything" economics of Usenet are all wrong for the modern Internet, though.

Re: Here's Why People Are Backing App.net

#39
post #9

I backed this almost immediately, and expected them to be a lot closer to the goal than they are now (still more than $300,000 off with only seven days to go). I'm very surprised with the apparent lack of resonance with the idea from people around here. So what are some of the reasons you aren't backing?

The problem with App.net (as it's currently described, anyway) is that it's halfway between what people who love Twitter want and what people who hate Twitter want, which makes it less than an obvious sale for both. People who love Twitter want... Twitter. App.net doesn't interoperate with Twitter; it's another, separate silo. There's no guarantees that your Twitter friends will move to App.net with you, which limits…

The guarantee that App.net won't kneecap its developers is that its developers are paying customers.

Re: Here's Why People Are Backing App.net

#40
post #7

https://join.app.net/ People aren't backing join.app.net. Are they really going to find 300k in a week, when they have raised only just half that after such a long time?

Yes, I really wonder how much blogspam and artificial HN buzz they have to make before acknowledging that people are just not interested.
Post reply on HN