31–40 of 70 posts
Not saying its crucial or 100% important, but I do think the name and it's ability to work well in English has a lot to d owith success.
Maybe?
Mat Honan deserves credit for one of the clearest, most concise descriptions of what App.net is (or intends to be): > Imagine this. You sign up for Vine, and build up a robust friend network and library of videos. But then you try out Instagram’s new video sharing, and decide you like its editing features a lot better. > Normally, this would mean starting over, with no friends and no files. But let’s say that both of…
Wouldn't those apps just be App.net clients? If you're limited only to what types of media App.net provides, how can you make an innovative app?
Mat Honan deserves credit for one of the clearest, most concise descriptions of what App.net is (or intends to be): > Imagine this. You sign up for Vine, and build up a robust friend network and library of videos. But then you try out Instagram’s new video sharing, and decide you like its editing features a lot better. > Normally, this would mean starting over, with no friends and no files. But let’s say that both of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't those apps just be App.net clients? If you're limited only to what types of media App.net provides, how can you make an innovative app?
Because you can have your own backend that does anything you want, and just uses App.net for the social graph.
I wonder if a part of these site or services is how the name works in the language. I can "tweet" something I can "google" something, but "app" something? Not saying its crucial or 100% important, but I do think the name and it's ability to work well in English has a lot to d owith success. Maybe?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you can have your own backend that does anything you want, and just uses App.net for the social graph.
At that point wouldn't you be better off using a bigger social graph?
(Note: app.net might pull those dirty tricks in the future, but at least they've got a business model that doesn't _require_ them too)
I mean, I can see why from a developer's point of view. Those $30k a month are enticing. But why would users care?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't those apps just be App.net clients? If you're limited only to what types of media App.net provides, how can you make an innovative app?
Because you can have your own backend that does anything you want, and just uses App.net for the social graph.
Mat Honan deserves credit for one of the clearest, most concise descriptions of what App.net is (or intends to be): > Imagine this. You sign up for Vine, and build up a robust friend network and library of videos. But then you try out Instagram’s new video sharing, and decide you like its editing features a lot better. > Normally, this would mean starting over, with no friends and no files. But let’s say that both of…