Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware • Hacker News Board

Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware

#31

Post by fuckyoudalton » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 7:34 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #29

fuckyoudalton wrote: post #20

SERIOUSLY, FUCK YOU DALTON. Now that I've got that out of my system... Learn yourself some fucking statistics. Considering that you're a programmer/hacker (well, maybe by some loose definition of the word, but at least you like to think you are) you should at least know SOME math. Statistics isn't that hard. Have you figured out why you're a miserable piece of shit yet? That's right, it's because you got the statisti…

[deleted]

Thank you very much for the constructive criticism. I have remedied points 1 and 4. I did not see any problems in my post with spelling, shouting, or personal attacks. Again, thank you for the feedback!

Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware

#32

Post by jumpbug » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 7:37 PM UTC

andrew_simone wrote: post #25

jumpbug wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it solves one, I think its providing a way for developers to stick it to the man. In this case, Twitter, Craigslist, and Facebook.

If by "sticking it to the man" you mean "creating a business model based on an open api and not the content in the platform the API uses," then I agree. The problem with Twitter and Facebook is that they've moved away from supporting external developers into media companies (so the argument goes). If that's true, then Twitter and Facebook are looking for the best interests of it's advertising partners like every medi…

If you took Facebook and Twitter making a few people mad lately out of the equation, this is a mediocre idea at best. I think its feeding off of people's temporary anger at the situation. I think it will pass.

Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware

#33

Post by look_lookatme » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 7:38 PM UTC

Just to be clear, app.net is a centralized messaging service, to be owned and operated as a private company, allowing integration to whoever it sees fit, at whatever cost it sees fit?

The upside is they promise not to show ads?

Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware

#34

Post by mattlong » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 7:39 PM UTC

It seems that development is going full steam ahead even though the project hasn't reached it's funding goal yet. What happens if the goal isn't met by the deadline? I can't imagine Dalton will just drop it. I guess what I'm asking is, what's the significance of the funding goal being met or not?

Am I missing something?

Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware

#35

Post by andrewljohnson » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 7:41 PM UTC

I would have worded a message like this much differently - I would keep it positive. I would not mention my app name and the word vaporware in the same article, I would just include the bit where I demonstrate who is using app.net, and link the code. I would also not give lip service to doubters who say the funding goal won't be reached.

This message may feel nuanced to the author, but it's tone is negative and defensive.

Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware

#36

Post by lamebrain » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 7:46 PM UTC

ghshephard wrote: post #28

maxwin wrote: post #4

I think it's going to be very hard to pull this off. I feel like Dalton is living in a bubble of people who are willing to pay to avoid ads. But for most everyone else, a social network with ads (that are not TOO annoying) is much better than one that ask for your money. He might be able to find enough people to pay to become a profitable business but I doubt he will ever reach facebook or twitter like scale. And if…

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…

> living in a bubble

> I listen to the podcasts of precisely six people

Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware

#37

Post by MatthewPhillips » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 7:48 PM UTC

mattlong wrote: post #34

It seems that development is going full steam ahead even though the project hasn't reached it's funding goal yet. What happens if the goal isn't met by the deadline? I can't imagine Dalton will just drop it. I guess what I'm asking is, what's the significance of the funding goal being met or not? Am I missing something?

If they don't meet the goal, they don't get any money from people who have already pledged. So it's very significant.

Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware

#38

Post by comex » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 7:48 PM UTC

Incidentally, whatever additional stuff dalton is planning to add and let developers add, the alpha currently appears to be enough of a Twitter clone that it should be compatible with Twitter clients. Therefore, I'm much more likely to pay for this (before or after the funding deadline) if someone convinces Tapbots to add support to Tweetbot... or, equivalently, releases a Twitter API to app.net proxy and a hack to redirect it to there.

Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware

#39

Post by sharl » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 7:49 PM UTC

fuckyoudalton wrote: post #20

SERIOUSLY, FUCK YOU DALTON. Now that I've got that out of my system... Learn yourself some fucking statistics. Considering that you're a programmer/hacker (well, maybe by some loose definition of the word, but at least you like to think you are) you should at least know SOME math. Statistics isn't that hard. Have you figured out why you're a miserable piece of shit yet? That's right, it's because you got the statisti…

Yeah, that Mac OS X thing. No-one buys that. Jeez.

Re: Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware

#40

Post by aniro » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 7:51 PM UTC

I think a paid model will be the only way forward for the set of people that value privacy and control over their data.

I dont know that app.net hits the right ($) spot for that user group. The implication of facebook's revenue is that users are willing to trade privacy and data ownership for about $4/yr (the current monetization rate of a facebook user), which means getting to $50/yr seems somewhat arbitrary and hard to decode.

I think at some point in the future people will see $50/yr for those two things (privacy and data control) as a relative bargain. I do today, and backed this proposal due to these concerns.

I think driving developer investments may be critical to getting to their funding goal, and frankly they are offering to take away a potential threat and not making a strong enough case about what value they are adding. It often requires an explicit threat to get people to pony up for security, not an implied threat.