> Twitter in its early days made zero sense to end-users, and it was only through the effort of third party developers that it went mainstream. Sorry if you've

> Twitter in its early days made zero sense to end-users, and it was only through the effort of third party developers that it went mainstream. Sorry if you've explained it elsewhere (I've not been paying much attention) but can you cite/explain that claim? My experience might be different, but most of the "normal people" I know of that use Twitter use it through the apps for their mobile (eg: iPhone, Blackberry) and they use it because that's the device they use, not because the apps are incredible and make Twitter appealing, the Twitter network is appealing. Based on this wouldn't the correct argument be that making Twitter available to everyone easily is what caused Twitter's mainstream success? I think you explained the problem yourself: At day 0 Twitter made no sense to users and Twitter had 0 barriers to entry, all you had to do was sign up! How can app.net get over that problem while charging $50? If I'm correct that ease of access/use is what made Twitter mainstream wouldn't that mean you're doing the exact opposite of what made Twitter successful? I really love the idea and hope it succeeds, but I don't see how you can appeal to anyone outside of the tech circle when charging for access.