3 ms·

Some criticism of the App.net project, which I hope is constructive: It took a bit of reading between the lines, but from what I understand Dalton is trying to

Some criticism of the App.net project, which I hope is constructive: It took a bit of reading between the lines, but from what I understand Dalton is trying to build a paid version of Twitter which is beholden to users and developers rather than advertisers. He refers to it as a "realtime feed platform" and is asking for $50/member/year (or more for the Developer and Pro tiers). If that's the case, the first big question is: Would I pay $50/year for Twitter? It's hard to say for sure, but I'm not sure I would. This makes committing $50 to something that may not work out difficult – I need to be convinced of the value of this project. The second big question is: Would everyone else pay $50/year for Twitter? Given that Twitter is only useful because of the network of people on there, if they don't come along then my $50/year is for naught even if this project does get funded. I need to be convinced that the value of the network will be there and I just don't see how that's going to happen. The last piece of criticism is at the messaging. It's been rubbing me the wrong way and I'm not sure exactly why; I feel like when I read about it I'm being told how much I should care, but I haven't been convinced yet that I should care that much. More specifically: "audacious proposal" - It won't happen unless the support is there, so what's so crazy about it? "service we all wish existed" - I hadn't really been wishing for this, even though the steps Twitter has taken recently have been a bit disconcerting. "I'm putting my money where my mouth is" - Your money? That's our money! Again, it only happens if it gets funded. The funding doesn't seem to be moving along too quickly, so I can only assume other people have reservations about the idea, or haven't been convinced of the value. I'd be interested in knowing whether other people agree with the reasons I laid out.

MatthewPhillips 14y ago
It slightly rubs me the wrong way as well. Like you said, it doesn't explain the product much at all. Instead it asks us to invest $50+ just for liking his business philosophy. I think both are important. I have mixed feelings about it (if it is indeed a paid version of twitter). On the one hand, my biggest gripe with Twitter is that it should be federated, and I doubt that's the plan for this service. But on the other hand, if their philosophy is to listen to their (paying) customers, perhaps it is something they would be willing to change.
pedalpete 14y ago
I think you can re-phrase your question of "Would I pay $50/year for Twitter" as "Would I pay $50/year for something like Twitter, when Twitter is already free". App.net needs to be considered in the overall market, not as a stand-alone. It's biggest threat (I don't think) is the $50, it's going up agains a free established major brand in a network play. Has this ever been done before?
rokhayakebe 14y ago
He is building a highway, who wants to pay for a highway? Well, wait until someone builds a car, and motorcycles and malls, and restaurants. If you understand building long lasting roads is possibly the single most important step towards a better-fast-growing economy, then you will get a grasp of what he is doing. I had no idea who the guy was and I can care the less about his past experience, but I am confident he is building the future. He is not building Twitter, and I believe he only uses the Twitter analogy because that is closest to what he is trying to build. He is building an engine that will allow all users to throw data in, be it links, text, photos, news, private messages, anything. This data will be available to developers who are going to build sophisticated tools to make it work for you and others.

MatthewPhillips 14y ago

It slightly rubs me the wrong way as well. Like you said, it doesn't explain the product much at all. Instead it asks us to invest $50+ just for liking his business philosophy. I think both are important. I have mixed feelings about it (if it is indeed a paid version of twitter). On the one hand, my biggest gripe with Twitter is that it should be federated, and I doubt that's the plan for this service. But on the other hand, if their philosophy is to listen to their (paying) customers, perhaps it is something they would be willing to change.

pedalpete 14y ago

I think you can re-phrase your question of "Would I pay $50/year for Twitter" as "Would I pay $50/year for something like Twitter, when Twitter is already free". App.net needs to be considered in the overall market, not as a stand-alone. It's biggest threat (I don't think) is the $50, it's going up agains a free established major brand in a network play. Has this ever been done before?

rokhayakebe 14y ago

He is building a highway, who wants to pay for a highway? Well, wait until someone builds a car, and motorcycles and malls, and restaurants. If you understand building long lasting roads is possibly the single most important step towards a better-fast-growing economy, then you will get a grasp of what he is doing. I had no idea who the guy was and I can care the less about his past experience, but I am confident he is building the future. He is not building Twitter, and I believe he only uses the Twitter analogy because that is closest to what he is trying to build. He is building an engine that will allow all users to throw data in, be it links, text, photos, news, private messages, anything. This data will be available to developers who are going to build sophisticated tools to make it work for you and others.