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

The money part of App.net is a red herring

alexhillman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 108 posts

Re: The money part of App.net is a red herring

#71

Post by alexknowshtml »

OoTheNigerian wrote: post #68
alexknowshtml wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have an honest question for you because I'm trying to understand this mode of thinking myself: why suddenly "no fear" of the rug being pulled out from under you? How does giving Dalton your money permanently align your interests with his? Edit: this isn't meant to accuse Dalton of nefarious plans in the least. I just don't understand the causal link.

1. Because being a platform/ an API as a service is its's publicly stated goal. 2. The clear business model of charging users makes that goal viable and feasible. So far, I have no reason to doubt him. Do you? BTW, I have no idea if it will be wildly successful. However, I'm certain interesting things will come out of it.

Neither of those points safeguard you from it turning into something other than what YOU want. That's the point I'm trying to make.

I don't have a specific reason for doubt, but I don't have evidence for confidence either.

I'm 100% behind a paid API as a service for the purpose of financial sustainability. But I don't think that's what has actually been purchased by the first batch of customers.

They paid for a dream, like you. And that's okay.

My point was to make sure people had a chance to see that's what they purchased. :)

Re: The money part of App.net is a red herring

#72

Post by alexknowshtml »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #67
jbigelow76 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was once tasked with building a web app for a real estate company. The ultimate stake holder (can't remember his title) told me as we were wrapping up a requirements gathering meeting: I don't know what I want, but I'll know it when I see it. I was still too green to know that I should have run for my life after that statement.

Really? When I hear that I think I think "You Beaut!" A customer who wants to pay you to mess around with new ideas and come up with something great. Nothing more boring than client that knows exactly what they want.

"...too green to know that I should have run for my life after that statement."

Yep.

Re: The money part of App.net is a red herring

#73

Post by [deleted] »

ninetax wrote: post #70
OoTheNigerian wrote: post #44

I personally think that this post does not belong to the top of HN for the mere fact that it says nothing. Writing a blogpost speculating about the motivations behind App.net, behind people backing it, the result, the lesson about the post speaking of the fear of money, about how app.net will turnout. Just a bunch of negative speculation bundled together and called a blogpost then to go on to the comments and boast a…

I think the reason this is at the top of HN is that people want to talk about app.net and, though it may be lacking in substance, the OP brings up an interesting point of view. A lot of people feel very deeply about some of the ideas around app.net and with people's speculation/discussion you can get a sense of what is really important to people who use HN.

[deleted]

Re: The money part of App.net is a red herring

#75

Post by OoTheNigerian »

alexknowshtml wrote: post #71
OoTheNigerian wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Because being a platform/ an API as a service is its's publicly stated goal. 2. The clear business model of charging users makes that goal viable and feasible. So far, I have no reason to doubt him. Do you? BTW, I have no idea if it will be wildly successful. However, I'm certain interesting things will come out of it.

Neither of those points safeguard you from it turning into something other than what YOU want. That's the point I'm trying to make. I don't have a specific reason for doubt, but I don't have evidence for confidence either. I'm 100% behind a paid API as a service for the purpose of financial sustainability. But I don't think that's what has actually been purchased by the first batch of customers. They paid for a dream…

Re read what you just wrote. Is there ANYTHING that is guaranteed to become what EVERYONE wants? That includes the owner.

You have no evidence to either doubt or believe. Like you have said, you chose the former, some people have decided to choose the later. That was a cool scenario until you decided your position is the right way.

What I expect from a developer like you is to attempt building/prototyping what you would like to see on top app.net. Non devs like me can speculate on what products might/come from this and things we would like to see.

To be clear, it is very good to raise questions, but let them be of substance . There is a great way to go about it [1]

This is Hackernews, we do not spend all our energy and focus on the several ways things might fail. We have more than enough people wired for that.

BTW, I am not a financial backer yet. Hopefully, I will be soon enough.

[1] https://social-igniter.com/blog/2012/08/why-we-support-app-d...

Re: The money part of App.net is a red herring

#76

Post by paulsutter »

I agree with the title but not the article.

App.net is an API-centric twitter. The fact that it costs money or doesn't have advertising is secondary. Sure, it's probably a requirement for an API-centric twitter, but the API-centricity is the real actual key.

ps - Dalton, understand why reserved twitter names is for contributors only, but you might want a feature like _twittername as a sub-namespace for twitter reserved names that are aliases for real app.net names. Just sayin.

Re: The money part of App.net is a red herring

#77

Post by gaelian »

alexknowshtml wrote: post #66
eridius wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the user is the customer. With Twitter, the advertiser is the customer, and the user is the product. This leads to seemingly-capricious changes like the recent backlash against third-party developers. But when the user is the customer, then the business's goals are aligned with the user's.

I was with you until the last sentence. How does that help developers who are being harmed under the advertiser arrangement? The developers still make up a minority of the user revenue. Even if that flipped...there are multiple customer interests at play. Developers, member users, and the company. No advertisers is better than advertisers, but I don't see anything that protects developers (except Dalton's word, which…

But couldn't part of the potential be that a 3rd party developer ecosystem that feels healthy and secure will focus on providing added value for users, thereby encouraging more users? More developers? More revenue? And assumedly proving the developers worth to the company as being greater than just their $100/year (or whatever it ends up being)? I'm not saying that all parties are always going to get along like a friendly gang-bang, but I don't think it is as simple as 'The developers still make up a minority of the user revenue.'

Re: The money part of App.net is a red herring

#79

Post by alexknowshtml »

gaelian wrote: post #77
alexknowshtml wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was with you until the last sentence. How does that help developers who are being harmed under the advertiser arrangement? The developers still make up a minority of the user revenue. Even if that flipped...there are multiple customer interests at play. Developers, member users, and the company. No advertisers is better than advertisers, but I don't see anything that protects developers (except Dalton's word, which…

But couldn't part of the potential be that a 3rd party developer ecosystem that feels healthy and secure will focus on providing added value for users, thereby encouraging more users? More developers? More revenue? And assumedly proving the developers worth to the company as being greater than just their $100/year (or whatever it ends up being)? I'm not saying that all parties are always going to get along like a fri…

> I don't think it's as simple as...

Is kinda the point I've been trying to make. :)

A big part of twitter's initial growth was due to 3rd party development. But the tides shifted there as well, not (just) because of advertisers but because of "normal people" joining as users.

I wonder if that's who we're actually excited to keep out? Not the advertisers, but all of those totally mediocre people who make our trending topics embarrassingly dull ;)

Re: The money part of App.net is a red herring

#80

Post by rglullis »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #67
jbigelow76 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was once tasked with building a web app for a real estate company. The ultimate stake holder (can't remember his title) told me as we were wrapping up a requirements gathering meeting: I don't know what I want, but I'll know it when I see it. I was still too green to know that I should have run for my life after that statement.

Really? When I hear that I think I think "You Beaut!" A customer who wants to pay you to mess around with new ideas and come up with something great. Nothing more boring than client that knows exactly what they want.

> who wants to pay you to mess around with new ideas and come up with something great.

My experience is that the only want to pay for the "coming up with something great" part, not the messing around with new ideas.

Worse still, they only want to pay for what they see, which is usually just the tip of the iceberg.

Give me a boring client over someone with lots of imagination, any day.

Post reply on HN