The money part of App.net is a red herring • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by mechanical_fish » Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 5:55 AM UTC

alexknowshtml wrote: post #49

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 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.

I've been thinking about it. And my best guess so far is: App.net builds confidence because, if it succeeds, it will be an existence proof of itself.

Or, to be a bit more concrete: People are supporting App.net because they hope it's possible, as a business proposition, to successfully fork a subnetwork away from a major social network. Once we have confidence that this is possible, it feels like we can always do it again. We can fork it as many times as we need to. When the rug gets pulled out from under some of us, as it inevitably will, we'll weave another rug.

The money thing, which you believe is irrelevant, is actually part of the argument here: The more revenue each node in the network is worth, the smaller the size of the sub-network that can profitably be broken off and operated independently.

(Note that there's as yet no evidence that Twitter itself, let alone a subset of Twitter, can be run at a profit.)

By this interpretation, if App.net succeeds at all, Dalton's personal notions of how to run a network will rapidly diminish in relevance. Because, once one App.net succeeds, more will rapidly follow.

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

#82

Post by eridius » Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 5:55 AM UTC

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…

The 3rd-party developers add value for the users. If the users are customers, then this is a good thing for the business.

In Twitter's case, the 3rd-party developers add value for the users, but subtract value from advertisers. This is good for users, but since the advertisers are Twitter's customers, this is bad for Twitter's business.

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

#83

Post by guscost » Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 6:02 AM UTC

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.

I'm gonna go out there and say it: the money part is what really made the discussion explode.

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

#84

Post by alexknowshtml » Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 6:14 AM UTC

mechanical_fish wrote: post #81

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.

I've been thinking about it. And my best guess so far is: App.net builds confidence because, if it succeeds, it will be an existence proof of itself. Or, to be a bit more concrete: People are supporting App.net because they hope it's possible, as a business proposition, to successfully fork a subnetwork away from a major social network. Once we have confidence that this is possible, it feels like we can always do it…

I never said the money is irrelevant, quite the contrary.

It's VERY relevant. Just not in the way that the other author I'd cited made it out to be, nor does money have the protective alignment that I think people have convinced themselves it brings.

That said, your fragmentation thesis is an interesting one for sure. Have you seen anything along those lines researched outside of this context, by chance?

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

#85

Post by alexknowshtml » Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 6:15 AM UTC

guscost wrote: post #83

ninetax wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm gonna go out there and say it: the money part is what really made the discussion explode.

Without a doubt. Money makes everything more complicated, even "clear business models" aren't so clear.

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

#86

Post by gaelian » Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 6:15 AM UTC

alexknowshtml wrote: post #79

gaelian wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

OK fair enough. But I could have sworn I was just replying directly to something you said in your above comment. And I don't think I took it too far out of context. :)

> 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.

Agreed. But what would you think the split would be on tide shifting regarding 3rd party development due to advertisers vs. 'normal people' signing up? I'd still bet on the former being the more pressing issue.

> 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 ;)

For me personally, I'm more excited about losing the advertisers. But now that you mention it, maybe losing (at least for a while) the mediocre users you speak of is just an added bonus. :P

Of course, not I or anyone else knows how App.net is going to turn out at this point, but I'm approaching it with curiosity at this stage, I don't yet see a reson to add morbidity.

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

#87

Post by greghinch » Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 6:42 AM UTC

jbigelow76 wrote: post #29

unimpressive wrote: post #13

My current suspicion is that Dalton has no idea how to build what he wants, in fact he doesn't even know what the thing he wants is . So he's fanning the flames on this discussion to let everyone else come up with something for him.

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.

This is where you bill by the hour

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

#88

Post by vladd » Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 7:00 AM UTC

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…

> for the mere fact that it says nothing.

It says that marketing the concept of 'paid' web-apps in a professional way managed to attract > 500'000 USD in sales (as opposed to providing a solution for real user problems).

That's a fact, not speculation. Building something that people pay money for is hard. Failing to do that and asking people to buy the dream while at the same time doing heavy marketing criticizing the concept seems ironic, to say the least.

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

#89

Post by dasil003 » Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 7:37 AM UTC

diego wrote: post #5

"By the way, I put my $50 in out of pure morbid curiosity of what’s under the hood. In retrospect, I should’ve donated to a charity." That's a pretty callous way to end a post, Alex. It's not either-or. If you really feel that way, ask for a refund. Donate the money to charity whether you get the refund or not.

In retrospect?! LOL, we're burning through these internet fads faster and faster every day.

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

#90

Post by kevinpet » Tue, Aug 14, 2012, 7:52 AM UTC

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 thought I agreed with you, because I read this post thinking it was a reply to the recent article about app.net's fee-based service not being inherently superior to twitter's ad-based service. When I read the post it was actually a response to, it does make sense, but it isn't clearly stated.

If I may attempt to restate, the argument is as follows: Ilya wrote an article criticizing those who are reluctant to ask users to plunk down cold hard cash for an actual solution to their problem. This is a legitimate point. However, app.net is a poor example of someone attempting to actually get paying customers because the app.net customers are doing something more similar to donating to a cause they believe in than actually buying a product. The value of this product -- the good feeling of supporting something new and exciting -- will inherently disappear as soon as the product is no longer new and exciting. Additionally, because the product does not yet exist in anything resembling a final form, the customers are able to project their own hopes and dreams for what they would like it to be, rather than what it actually is.

This argument is a lot more than saying nothing. I definitely agree with it. If a reluctance to ask for money in fear of getting shot down because your product isn't any good is the problem, then asking for money to support some product that exists more as dreams than code isn't the solution. The solution is to build something that real people will buy, not because they are your friends, not because they want to be able to say they were an early adopter of something that will become big, but because the product actually provides value to them as it exists today.