4 ms·

> Building a better twitter is possible, so build it. It's been done. For example, app.net. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App.net https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

by _qulr 6y ago

> Building a better twitter is possible, so build it. It's been done. For example, app.net. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App.net https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App.net I deleted my Twitter account and joined ADN. But not many followed that example. Most people stuck with Twitter, ADN never reached "critical mass", and it eventually shut down. I don't think this is a technological problem. You could say it's a marketing problem. The critical mass is essential to a social network. ADN didn't get it. Mastodon hasn't got it. Twitter has it, Facebook has it, and it's just hard to compete with that.

randomsearch 6y ago
> I don't think this is a technological problem. You could say it's a marketing problem. Yes I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. Perhaps App.net really was better, that's great - it means we know how to solve the problems of twitter (given I haven't heard exactly how it was better, that makes me sceptical). But I think what you mean is _replace_ twitter, which is not what I was getting at. That is not just a tech or marketing problem but a business problem. I believe that's possible too. But the skillset required is probably outside of the average HN member, so I was tailoring my comment for a tech person. Another way tech people can contribute is making chrome add-ons that improve twitter, demonstrating how it can be better. Again, that's separate from launching a company.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > given I haven't heard exactly how it was better, that makes me sceptical ADN was a subscription service. The common expression is always true: if you're not the customer, you're the product.
  - randomsearch 6y ago
    > ADN was a subscription service. The common expression is always true: if you're not the customer, you're the product. There's a false implication here that ADN was better than Twitter but failed only because Twitter's business model is worse but lucrative. I think that's really not true. If you could build a product that people liked more, even if you made less money you'd still win.

by _qulr 6y ago

randomsearch 6y ago

> I don't think this is a technological problem. You could say it's a marketing problem. Yes I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. Perhaps App.net really was better, that's great - it means we know how to solve the problems of twitter (given I haven't heard exactly how it was better, that makes me sceptical). But I think what you mean is _replace_ twitter, which is not what I was getting at. That is not just a tech or marketing problem but a business problem. I believe that's possible too. But the skillset required is probably outside of the average HN member, so I was tailoring my comment for a tech person. Another way tech people can contribute is making chrome add-ons that improve twitter, demonstrating how it can be better. Again, that's separate from launching a company.

_qulr 6y ago
> given I haven't heard exactly how it was better, that makes me sceptical ADN was a subscription service. The common expression is always true: if you're not the customer, you're the product.
- randomsearch 6y ago
  > ADN was a subscription service. The common expression is always true: if you're not the customer, you're the product. There's a false implication here that ADN was better than Twitter but failed only because Twitter's business model is worse but lucrative. I think that's really not true. If you could build a product that people liked more, even if you made less money you'd still win.