10 ms·

Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware

131 points by auston 14y ago

AznHisoka 14y ago
I won't say it'll fail only because he's so persistent in gaining mind share. Sooner or later, someone will "acquire" this project.
akulbe 14y ago
It's definitely not vaporware. I have backed the project, and I'm impressed so far.
uncoder0 14y ago
Who has accused it of being vaporware?
- mgkimsal 14y ago
  perhaps a few strawmen did?
  - andrew_simone 14y ago
    I could be pedantic and link to a few tweets, but I think a quick search.twitter.com would yield you a few answers.
- Braasch 14y ago
  I wouldn't say it has been accused of being vaporware, but I think the reason some people aren't backing it is because they believe it may just be an API and nothing more (when in fact there's a working proof-of-concept alpha version). Also, to those that've backed the project and want access to the alpha: email join@app.net and you'll be able to get in. :-)
  - uncoder0 14y ago
    I don't think it is a widely held opinion. Hopefully this move helps you find the rest of your backers. :D Backed.
- Irishsteve 14y ago
  Facebook most likely.
- quartus 14y ago
  There were certainly people calling app.net and our API spec vaporware on HN and other places. The purpose of this post is to showcase the alpha-version of our web service and API to users and developers and to encourage them to check it out. We hope that our work so far will speak for itself and get people excited about join.app.net.
maxwin 14y ago
I think it's going to be very hard to pull this off. I feel like Dalton is living in a bubble of people who are willing to pay to avoid ads. But for most everyone else, a social network with ads (that are not TOO annoying) is much better than one that ask for your money. He might be able to find enough people to pay to become a profitable business but I doubt he will ever reach facebook or twitter like scale. And if it doesn't scale, the paying members will leave eventually.
- quartus 14y ago
  One thing to note is that our funding velocity is not linear, it has been picking up speed. If we can keep the momentum going and spread the word, we are confident that we will hit our goal. Regarding ads being not too annoying, people are backing app.net because of the larger goal: creating a service where the user is the customer rather than the product. This allows app.net to focus all of its resources on pleasing the user, and ensures app.net will not try to shut down 3rd party developers who are competing for advertising dollars. To this end, app.net does not need to become twitter-like scale to create a sustainable business.
  - webjprgm 14y ago
    Would it work if the 3rd-party devs were the customers? I.e. anyone using XYZ's app gets in for free because XYZ company pays the usage fees (out of it's ad revenue). That would avoid app.net trying to shut down services that customers like. It would also improve user adoption since it's free to the user. But how does this model compare to the customer-centric one?
    - wmf 14y ago
      Another model that might be worth trying is pay to send, free to receive. So if people just want to follow Scoble, let Scoble pay for 'em.
      - ConstantineXVI 14y ago
        Are you suggesting users pay per follower? You've essentially turned it into an advertising platform; which gets us right back where we started only worse (can't get influence at all unless you pay for it)
brackin 14y ago
I think it doesn't have to just be a Twitter rival. Twitter is heading into the mainstream direction. Focusing on news, celebrities, etc. A voice will develop if this does go to plan and Twitter could be Reddit while App.net could be Hacker News.
junto 14y ago
I just signed up. Actually a rather slick sign up process. Well done. Emails look nice. Only weird thing was the confirmation of my Twitter account. To start with I selected the tweet option and the sign up process seemed to end with me being redirected to my Twitter account page, but somehow I didn't feel "finished". So then I went back and authorised the app with Twitter as well and that seemed to properly complete the process. Maybe I just needed to wait a bit for the original tweet to be picked up, but that wasn't obvious.
fuckyoudalton 14y ago
SERIOUSLY, FUCK YOU DALTON. Now that I've got that out of my system... Learn yourself some fucking statistics. Considering that you're a programmer/hacker (well, maybe by some loose definition of the word, but at least you like to think you are) you should at least know SOME math. Statistics isn't that hard. Have you figured out why you're a miserable piece of shit yet? That's right, it's because you got the statistics wrong. Let's walk through baby's first statistics with your numbers. What you are trying to claim: "My project has a decent chance of succeeding". What you know: 5.7% of failed projects on kickstarter reached the same funding percent yours has. Only 212 projects within the same funding goal actually reached their target. What you don't know: Enough information to draw any more useful information. Seriously, that percent you threw out there is next to meaningless without more information. I'm having trouble here communicating clearly exactly how stupid your claim that you'll succeed based on that is. And hell, in addition, it's not even a valid comparison because it's a kickstarter statistic. Punch yourself in the head real quick and repeat after me: "I AM NOT USING KICKSTARTER THUS THEIR STATISTICS DO NOT APPLY TO ME. I WILL NOT GO NEAR A GRAPHING CALCULATOR EVER." Now all of this is enough to make you my number 1 scumbag of all time, but we haven't even gotten to the part where I let you know how much the idea of app.net sucks. I mean seriously, who the fuck pays for a service like this? Seen how many people use metafilter vs say tumblr? And that's not even the worst problem here... People are what drive social media sites. The only reason Google+ had a chance is because google can force it onto people's phones and computers via android/gmail/etc. Even given that it's lagging far behind facebook. Your plan on getting users is the retarded idea that giving people an API will suddenly make them want to pay you money. That might work for half a dozen of your friends and steve jobs who all think that paying money for something is a good idea even if it's inferior shit (case in point; mac os X vs linux). In the real world this simply won't fly. A regular user will see his hundreds of friends on facebook and twitter and then see the 50 bucks you're charging and the complete ghost town and instantly pick the only sane option; that is to avoid your shit like the plague. Anyways, I've already wasted enough of my time here. You're not worth half the cursewords I wrote and your idea is, if that was possible, worth even less than you. FUCK YOU DALTON CALDWELL who does things the stupid way (nice catchphrase).
- WiseWeasel 14y ago
briandear 14y ago
What's the real-world problem App.net solves? I'm not being cynical, just curious. If I back the project, I want to know the pain point I'm solving and if it's a pain point that actually is worth solving versus something else. The other question I have is, who's the market? People are using the HN vs. Reddit comparison, but HN is about as niche as it gets and also doesn't really do much other than provide a place for us to share some data. Muggles don't usually visit HN and I'm wondering if they'd have a need for App.net. I'm considering backing it, but like all investments, there's some due diligence involved. There's also the opportunity cost for the money that should be considered. I'm also wondering why kickstarter is appropriate as opposed to traditional VC and seed funds. If there's a sustainable business there, it would seem like the App.net team would have a very easy time raising money -- they seem competent, capable and passionate (at least enough to warrant a small seed round.)
- jumpbug 14y ago
  I don't think it solves one, I think its providing a way for developers to stick it to the man. In this case, Twitter, Craigslist, and Facebook.
  - andrew_simone 14y ago
    If by "sticking it to the man" you mean "creating a business model based on an open api and not the content in the platform the API uses," then I agree. The problem with Twitter and Facebook is that they've moved away from supporting external developers into media companies (so the argument goes). If that's true, then Twitter and Facebook are looking for the best interests of it's advertising partners like every media company (radio, television, print, etc.) rather than the consumers. In the case of Facebook and Twitter, it means rolling out features that benefit the advertisers. Now, it is certainly possible that the features rolled out could benefit both sides, but the moment Twitter/Facebook has to make a decision between the two they'll pick the advertisers since that's how they butter their bread. App.net, by contrast, only has one option which is make the best choices for the developers/users. In some sense, this is really more of a B-to-B venture than a B-to-C since, ideally, App.net focuses on the API and let's the developers build the robust applications. Frankly, I like this idea.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
look_lookatme 14y ago
Just to be clear, app.net is a centralized messaging service, to be owned and operated as a private company, allowing integration to whoever it sees fit, at whatever cost it sees fit? The upside is they promise not to show ads?
- anu_gupta 14y ago
  No, the upside is that as app.net relies on people paying money, the users are customers instead of being the product.
  - look_lookatme 14y ago
    What's the product then?
    - neeee 14y ago
      I think it's the service that is the product.
    - ceslami 14y ago
      Have you taken a moment to read anything about it? It is abundantly clear. join.app.net, in case you really haven't, which I'm hoping is the case.
      - look_lookatme 14y ago
        That's no answer. As far as I can tell, the product is people willing to pay for their message updates and then a rev-share between the apps that allow them to do it, and Dalton's service. If that's your idea of a product... good luck.
- seagreen 14y ago
  Could someone who has an answer to these concerns post a link for the rest of us? For instance, what restricts app.net from limiting access to the API in the future, or from upping the price severely once it's gained more traction?
mattlong 14y ago
It seems that development is going full steam ahead even though the project hasn't reached it's funding goal yet. What happens if the goal isn't met by the deadline? I can't imagine Dalton will just drop it. I guess what I'm asking is, what's the significance of the funding goal being met or not? Am I missing something?
- MatthewPhillips 14y ago
  If they don't meet the goal, they don't get any money from people who have already pledged. So it's very significant.
  - jjb123 14y ago
    Is the funding goal about the financial significance? I'd argue it's more about the significance of proving there are 10,000 paid members as the foundation for the community (a notion of PG's that Dalton has referenced). I'm a backer, and I'd argue the brilliance of this is two-fold: Dalton gets to spend a month to see if there is enough demand to build this out for an initial community (instead of 8 months finding out the hard way), and us as backers will only be charged if there is a critical mass of interesting folks to launch the community. Neither of these are about the financial significance of $500,000 or $200,000 for that matter.
andrewljohnson 14y ago
I would have worded a message like this much differently - I would keep it positive. I would not mention my app name and the word vaporware in the same article, I would just include the bit where I demonstrate who is using app.net, and link the code. I would also not give lip service to doubters who say the funding goal won't be reached. This message may feel nuanced to the author, but it's tone is negative and defensive.
- natrius 14y ago
  I think it works for this sort of audience. We're skeptics. I was skeptical that their Kickstarter would be successful. This has convinced me otherwise. I'm still not convinced that the project itself will be successful, but time will tell.
- glanch 14y ago
  I agree. Dalton came off as extremely antagonistic and negative in his Kickstarter video as well. I could feel the anger in his voice. There has to be a more positive, uplifting way to communicate the reason app.net exists. You catch more flies with honey, etc.
comex 14y ago
Incidentally, whatever additional stuff dalton is planning to add and let developers add, the alpha currently appears to be enough of a Twitter clone that it should be compatible with Twitter clients. Therefore, I'm much more likely to pay for this (before or after the funding deadline) if someone convinces Tapbots to add support to Tweetbot... or, equivalently, releases a Twitter API to app.net proxy and a hack to redirect it to there.
aniro 14y ago
I think a paid model will be the only way forward for the set of people that value privacy and control over their data. I dont know that app.net hits the right ($) spot for that user group. The implication of facebook's revenue is that users are willing to trade privacy and data ownership for about $4/yr (the current monetization rate of a facebook user), which means getting to $50/yr seems somewhat arbitrary and hard to decode. I think at some point in the future people will see $50/yr for those two things (privacy and data control) as a relative bargain. I do today, and backed this proposal due to these concerns. I think driving developer investments may be critical to getting to their funding goal, and frankly they are offering to take away a potential threat and not making a strong enough case about what value they are adding. It often requires an explicit threat to get people to pony up for security, not an implied threat.
- ollysb 14y ago
  >> I think at some point in the future people will see $50/yr for those two things (privacy and data control) as a relative bargain. I can't remember ever hearing anyone mention privacy/data control issues outside of HN. Facebook has ridden slipshod over these issues many times and yet I've never heard anyone bring them up in conversation. The echo chamber here is booming with concern but who actually cares? Users care about the communication advantages of their online accounts but how many value the identity associated with them? People change their phone number because they want a new model that isn't available on their network. Do they see their online identities as any less interchangeable? If this is the case what kind of explicit threat could possibly justify paying money for protection of such an identity?
  - aniro 14y ago
    I am not in Silicon Valley nor connected to any technology companies. I know of a number of people within my own circle that refuse to use Facebook or Twitter due to privacy concerns. I have heard a growing number of stories from people concerned about protecting themselves and their friends, families from the potential down sides to an over-shared life and deleting or abandoning accounts due to those concerns. These are not people inside of the echo chamber on Hacker News or the technology field or Silicon Valley, these are people in retail, in investments, in hospitality, education.. from all walks of life. Facebook (as an example) wants to become an identity service. They are selling themselves on their ability to authenticate identity. It is impossible to delete a facebook account, and attempting to do so will merely ensure that you are the only one without access to the collected data. I reiterate the point that "in the future" people will see $50/yr as a bargain for privacy and data control. My first thought when seeing App.net was "awesome idea.. 18-24 months too soon, especially at that price point."
blntechie 14y ago
The only reason I didn't sign up was that I felt that I'm paying for the cause and not the product. Not that I support the reason behind app.net but it just makes me hesitate. If it's simple as "pay for this great product", I might have. Good luck on meeting your funding goal!!
- cmelbye 14y ago
  You are paying for the product though... You're paying for an account and alpha access to the product.
citricsquid 14y ago
re: Kickstarter stats, when 59% is remaining and that remaining percentage is over $250,000 I don't think there are any Kickstarter projects that have ever come back from that position. Very few have ever had $500k targets...
pdog 14y ago
After August 13, how much can the business model of App.net change? Is it possible that a free-tier could be added that allows the average user to access and use the service without paying? Additional developer & other features would be available to those who pay for them. In determining a business model for App.net, it seems they've never addressed why there isn't a free tier.
- catenate 14y ago
  There is a free tier. Anyone can read the global feed.
bazookaBen 14y ago
@dalton you need to pimp up the alpha design. That counts too, if you want a larger audience.
SCdF 14y ago
I read HN every day. It is probably the site I read the most after Google reader. It is my go to for filling time between doing actual work and doing more actual work. I'd like to think I'm vaguely down with the Internet kids, but.. Wtf is App.net and why do I care? Am I supposed to know about this already? Is this supposed to be as common knowledge as twitter or facebook in my nomenclature? Dalton is sure as shit not going to tell you, and the site is far too awesome to waste its time telling you either. Reading the API docs (really, I have to read API docs to work out what this does?!) tells me it's a "real-time social service where users and developers come first, not advertisers.". Taking that knowledge on hand and looking at alpha.app.net, it looks like a twitter clone, but presumably one that you pay for. Aren't there free twitter clones already? Anyway, rant over, colour me confused. Idk... there are lots of projects people could be building, and there is every kind of possibility this has really useful stuff in it, but from the outside it just looks like another twitter clone.
- notJim 14y ago
  What? It says "App.net is a real-time social feed without the ads." right at the top of https://join.app.net https://join.app.net, and "Continue to join.app.net, our Kickstarter-like project to create a real-time social feed." right on app.net. How is he supposed to tell you what it is if you don't even go to the website?
  - SCdF 14y ago
    I clicked the link in his blog post, which took me here: https://alpha.app.net/ https://alpha.app.net/. You're right though, 3 paragraphs into the blog there is a link to join.app.net.
catenate 14y ago
Can anyone yet point to something done with app.net that twitter won't or can't do? $50 is a lot to pay for something that so far acts just like twitter. Without those new and interesting apps, which right now do appear to be vaporware, it's not worth a premium over twitter. I don't think clients that just show you the feed or your feed count, because twitter can do that.
- dasil003 14y ago
  What app.net can do is offer you as a developer the credible promise that whatever you build on it will not be shut down because it conflicts with business decisions made 1, 5 or 10 years from now. This of course trickles down to the user, since you are virtually guaranteed that there will be new clients for as long as the service exists. With Twitter you are virtually guaranteed that no new client ideas will see the light of day unless they come from Twitter themselves, and those will all be designed to increase your usage of the service with any increased utility merely serving as the hook.
  - catenate 14y ago
    I do understand this, and would like it to be true. But until at least one application actually exists that twitter won't or can't do, this is all promises, and those apps (which I hope aren't limited to user clients) are, in fact, vaporware. To a user, this $50 isn't today buying them anything they can't get from twitter, which is why app.net might not get funded.
    - dasil003 14y ago
      Well this has only been promoted for like 3 weeks, so give it a minute. There's a chicken or egg problem, if no one buys into the dream before it's reality then it will fail.
      - catenate 14y ago
        It doesn't take half a million dollars to come up with one single actual demoable application that does something twitter won't or can't do. The point of this thing is supposed to be better apps. Fine, show me one, and I'll pay $50 to see more.
streptomycin 14y ago
StatusNet is also not vaporware. Furthermore, it's also open source and federated rather than being yet another proprietary walled garden run by a corporation.
- jmathai 14y ago
  The thing with projects/apps/sites is that there's a threshold of time before it's considered passe. It's not logical and we in turn waste a lot of time and resources reinventing the wheel but that's the truth of the matter. I can't shake the feeling that this initiative suffers from the worst of both worlds. It's not entirely open AND it's a paid service.
  - dasil003 14y ago
    Maybe you're right, but you could just as easily frame it as the best of both worlds: It's driven by the user's interests and it has the polish of a commercial product.
    - jmathai 14y ago
      That's the goal...I'm skeptical but hope they can prove me wrong.
SebMortelmans 14y ago
Dalton stated he will return all the money if he does not raise the full amount. Now why do I have the feeling that there is going to be a annex to that statement in a few days? He'll probably figure something out that allows him to (be allowed to) keep the money raised.
- ceslami 14y ago
  Your baseless pessimism is annoying at best. He is by no means a private figure -- a move like that would certainly destroy his reputation.
wamatt 14y ago
Do people really care about this? That might be the core problem. That said, I really respect Dalton for going all out on it.
arunoda 14y ago
Now I got it. This is a twitter clone. Give me 3 reasons to use app.net instead of Twitter? How do you different from Status.net & Yammer?
rdl 14y ago
I don't understand why a big company (or even a medium sized company) with no stake in the newsfeeds of Twitter or Facebook, or at least no interest in those being monopoly, doesn't fund this 100% just to reduce the power of Twitter and Facebook. $500k is not a huge amount of money if Twitter is disrupting your business (SMS carriers? Conventional blogging service? Print publication? Portal? Yahoo?)
mistercow 14y ago
>Additionally, if you take a look at Kickstarter’s official stats, it would appear that of 35,138 unsuccessful projects, only 2,026 of them ever reached 41% or more of their funding goal. In other words, only 5.7% of Kickstarter projects that don’t succeed ever manage to reach 40% of goal. Oh no. This is not how we Bayes. I don't have the mental energy to translate these natural language statements into statements of probability and actually apply Bayes' theorem, but I'm pretty sure if I did, the result would be a lot less inspiring of confidence than "only a 5.7% chance of failure!"
thedeuce 14y ago
app.net is a dumb name...NO THANKS; just because some no names are supporting it doesn't mean it's a great idea either.

131 points by auston 14y ago

I won't say it'll fail only because he's so persistent in gaining mind share. Sooner or later, someone will "acquire" this project.

akulbe 14y ago

It's definitely not vaporware. I have backed the project, and I'm impressed so far.

uncoder0 14y ago

Who has accused it of being vaporware?

mgkimsal 14y ago
perhaps a few strawmen did?
- andrew_simone 14y ago
  I could be pedantic and link to a few tweets, but I think a quick search.twitter.com would yield you a few answers.
Braasch 14y ago
I wouldn't say it has been accused of being vaporware, but I think the reason some people aren't backing it is because they believe it may just be an API and nothing more (when in fact there's a working proof-of-concept alpha version). Also, to those that've backed the project and want access to the alpha: email join@app.net and you'll be able to get in. :-)
- uncoder0 14y ago
  I don't think it is a widely held opinion. Hopefully this move helps you find the rest of your backers. :D Backed.
Irishsteve 14y ago
Facebook most likely.
quartus 14y ago
There were certainly people calling app.net and our API spec vaporware on HN and other places. The purpose of this post is to showcase the alpha-version of our web service and API to users and developers and to encourage them to check it out. We hope that our work so far will speak for itself and get people excited about join.app.net.

maxwin 14y ago

I think it's going to be very hard to pull this off. I feel like Dalton is living in a bubble of people who are willing to pay to avoid ads. But for most everyone else, a social network with ads (that are not TOO annoying) is much better than one that ask for your money. He might be able to find enough people to pay to become a profitable business but I doubt he will ever reach facebook or twitter like scale. And if it doesn't scale, the paying members will leave eventually.

quartus 14y ago
One thing to note is that our funding velocity is not linear, it has been picking up speed. If we can keep the momentum going and spread the word, we are confident that we will hit our goal. Regarding ads being not too annoying, people are backing app.net because of the larger goal: creating a service where the user is the customer rather than the product. This allows app.net to focus all of its resources on pleasing the user, and ensures app.net will not try to shut down 3rd party developers who are competing for advertising dollars. To this end, app.net does not need to become twitter-like scale to create a sustainable business.
- webjprgm 14y ago
  Would it work if the 3rd-party devs were the customers? I.e. anyone using XYZ's app gets in for free because XYZ company pays the usage fees (out of it's ad revenue). That would avoid app.net trying to shut down services that customers like. It would also improve user adoption since it's free to the user. But how does this model compare to the customer-centric one?
  - wmf 14y ago
    Another model that might be worth trying is pay to send, free to receive. So if people just want to follow Scoble, let Scoble pay for 'em.
    - ConstantineXVI 14y ago
      Are you suggesting users pay per follower? You've essentially turned it into an advertising platform; which gets us right back where we started only worse (can't get influence at all unless you pay for it)

brackin 14y ago

I think it doesn't have to just be a Twitter rival. Twitter is heading into the mainstream direction. Focusing on news, celebrities, etc. A voice will develop if this does go to plan and Twitter could be Reddit while App.net could be Hacker News.

junto 14y ago

I just signed up. Actually a rather slick sign up process. Well done. Emails look nice. Only weird thing was the confirmation of my Twitter account. To start with I selected the tweet option and the sign up process seemed to end with me being redirected to my Twitter account page, but somehow I didn't feel "finished". So then I went back and authorised the app with Twitter as well and that seemed to properly complete the process. Maybe I just needed to wait a bit for the original tweet to be picked up, but that wasn't obvious.

fuckyoudalton 14y ago

SERIOUSLY, FUCK YOU DALTON. Now that I've got that out of my system... Learn yourself some fucking statistics. Considering that you're a programmer/hacker (well, maybe by some loose definition of the word, but at least you like to think you are) you should at least know SOME math. Statistics isn't that hard. Have you figured out why you're a miserable piece of shit yet? That's right, it's because you got the statistics wrong. Let's walk through baby's first statistics with your numbers. What you are trying to claim: "My project has a decent chance of succeeding". What you know: 5.7% of failed projects on kickstarter reached the same funding percent yours has. Only 212 projects within the same funding goal actually reached their target. What you don't know: Enough information to draw any more useful information. Seriously, that percent you threw out there is next to meaningless without more information. I'm having trouble here communicating clearly exactly how stupid your claim that you'll succeed based on that is. And hell, in addition, it's not even a valid comparison because it's a kickstarter statistic. Punch yourself in the head real quick and repeat after me: "I AM NOT USING KICKSTARTER THUS THEIR STATISTICS DO NOT APPLY TO ME. I WILL NOT GO NEAR A GRAPHING CALCULATOR EVER." Now all of this is enough to make you my number 1 scumbag of all time, but we haven't even gotten to the part where I let you know how much the idea of app.net sucks. I mean seriously, who the fuck pays for a service like this? Seen how many people use metafilter vs say tumblr? And that's not even the worst problem here... People are what drive social media sites. The only reason Google+ had a chance is because google can force it onto people's phones and computers via android/gmail/etc. Even given that it's lagging far behind facebook. Your plan on getting users is the retarded idea that giving people an API will suddenly make them want to pay you money. That might work for half a dozen of your friends and steve jobs who all think that paying money for something is a good idea even if it's inferior shit (case in point; mac os X vs linux). In the real world this simply won't fly. A regular user will see his hundreds of friends on facebook and twitter and then see the 50 bucks you're charging and the complete ghost town and instantly pick the only sane option; that is to avoid your shit like the plague. Anyways, I've already wasted enough of my time here. You're not worth half the cursewords I wrote and your idea is, if that was possible, worth even less than you. FUCK YOU DALTON CALDWELL who does things the stupid way (nice catchphrase).

WiseWeasel 14y ago

briandear 14y ago

What's the real-world problem App.net solves? I'm not being cynical, just curious. If I back the project, I want to know the pain point I'm solving and if it's a pain point that actually is worth solving versus something else. The other question I have is, who's the market? People are using the HN vs. Reddit comparison, but HN is about as niche as it gets and also doesn't really do much other than provide a place for us to share some data. Muggles don't usually visit HN and I'm wondering if they'd have a need for App.net. I'm considering backing it, but like all investments, there's some due diligence involved. There's also the opportunity cost for the money that should be considered. I'm also wondering why kickstarter is appropriate as opposed to traditional VC and seed funds. If there's a sustainable business there, it would seem like the App.net team would have a very easy time raising money -- they seem competent, capable and passionate (at least enough to warrant a small seed round.)

jumpbug 14y ago
I don't think it solves one, I think its providing a way for developers to stick it to the man. In this case, Twitter, Craigslist, and Facebook.
- andrew_simone 14y ago
  If by "sticking it to the man" you mean "creating a business model based on an open api and not the content in the platform the API uses," then I agree. The problem with Twitter and Facebook is that they've moved away from supporting external developers into media companies (so the argument goes). If that's true, then Twitter and Facebook are looking for the best interests of it's advertising partners like every media company (radio, television, print, etc.) rather than the consumers. In the case of Facebook and Twitter, it means rolling out features that benefit the advertisers. Now, it is certainly possible that the features rolled out could benefit both sides, but the moment Twitter/Facebook has to make a decision between the two they'll pick the advertisers since that's how they butter their bread. App.net, by contrast, only has one option which is make the best choices for the developers/users. In some sense, this is really more of a B-to-B venture than a B-to-C since, ideally, App.net focuses on the API and let's the developers build the robust applications. Frankly, I like this idea.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

look_lookatme 14y ago

Just to be clear, app.net is a centralized messaging service, to be owned and operated as a private company, allowing integration to whoever it sees fit, at whatever cost it sees fit? The upside is they promise not to show ads?

anu_gupta 14y ago
No, the upside is that as app.net relies on people paying money, the users are customers instead of being the product.
- look_lookatme 14y ago
  What's the product then?
  - neeee 14y ago
    I think it's the service that is the product.
  - ceslami 14y ago
    Have you taken a moment to read anything about it? It is abundantly clear. join.app.net, in case you really haven't, which I'm hoping is the case.
    - look_lookatme 14y ago
      That's no answer. As far as I can tell, the product is people willing to pay for their message updates and then a rev-share between the apps that allow them to do it, and Dalton's service. If that's your idea of a product... good luck.
seagreen 14y ago
Could someone who has an answer to these concerns post a link for the rest of us? For instance, what restricts app.net from limiting access to the API in the future, or from upping the price severely once it's gained more traction?

mattlong 14y ago

It seems that development is going full steam ahead even though the project hasn't reached it's funding goal yet. What happens if the goal isn't met by the deadline? I can't imagine Dalton will just drop it. I guess what I'm asking is, what's the significance of the funding goal being met or not? Am I missing something?

MatthewPhillips 14y ago
If they don't meet the goal, they don't get any money from people who have already pledged. So it's very significant.
- jjb123 14y ago
  Is the funding goal about the financial significance? I'd argue it's more about the significance of proving there are 10,000 paid members as the foundation for the community (a notion of PG's that Dalton has referenced). I'm a backer, and I'd argue the brilliance of this is two-fold: Dalton gets to spend a month to see if there is enough demand to build this out for an initial community (instead of 8 months finding out the hard way), and us as backers will only be charged if there is a critical mass of interesting folks to launch the community. Neither of these are about the financial significance of $500,000 or $200,000 for that matter.

andrewljohnson 14y ago

I would have worded a message like this much differently - I would keep it positive. I would not mention my app name and the word vaporware in the same article, I would just include the bit where I demonstrate who is using app.net, and link the code. I would also not give lip service to doubters who say the funding goal won't be reached. This message may feel nuanced to the author, but it's tone is negative and defensive.

natrius 14y ago
I think it works for this sort of audience. We're skeptics. I was skeptical that their Kickstarter would be successful. This has convinced me otherwise. I'm still not convinced that the project itself will be successful, but time will tell.
glanch 14y ago
I agree. Dalton came off as extremely antagonistic and negative in his Kickstarter video as well. I could feel the anger in his voice. There has to be a more positive, uplifting way to communicate the reason app.net exists. You catch more flies with honey, etc.

comex 14y ago

Incidentally, whatever additional stuff dalton is planning to add and let developers add, the alpha currently appears to be enough of a Twitter clone that it should be compatible with Twitter clients. Therefore, I'm much more likely to pay for this (before or after the funding deadline) if someone convinces Tapbots to add support to Tweetbot... or, equivalently, releases a Twitter API to app.net proxy and a hack to redirect it to there.

aniro 14y ago

I think a paid model will be the only way forward for the set of people that value privacy and control over their data. I dont know that app.net hits the right ($) spot for that user group. The implication of facebook's revenue is that users are willing to trade privacy and data ownership for about $4/yr (the current monetization rate of a facebook user), which means getting to $50/yr seems somewhat arbitrary and hard to decode. I think at some point in the future people will see $50/yr for those two things (privacy and data control) as a relative bargain. I do today, and backed this proposal due to these concerns. I think driving developer investments may be critical to getting to their funding goal, and frankly they are offering to take away a potential threat and not making a strong enough case about what value they are adding. It often requires an explicit threat to get people to pony up for security, not an implied threat.

ollysb 14y ago
>> I think at some point in the future people will see $50/yr for those two things (privacy and data control) as a relative bargain. I can't remember ever hearing anyone mention privacy/data control issues outside of HN. Facebook has ridden slipshod over these issues many times and yet I've never heard anyone bring them up in conversation. The echo chamber here is booming with concern but who actually cares? Users care about the communication advantages of their online accounts but how many value the identity associated with them? People change their phone number because they want a new model that isn't available on their network. Do they see their online identities as any less interchangeable? If this is the case what kind of explicit threat could possibly justify paying money for protection of such an identity?
- aniro 14y ago
  I am not in Silicon Valley nor connected to any technology companies. I know of a number of people within my own circle that refuse to use Facebook or Twitter due to privacy concerns. I have heard a growing number of stories from people concerned about protecting themselves and their friends, families from the potential down sides to an over-shared life and deleting or abandoning accounts due to those concerns. These are not people inside of the echo chamber on Hacker News or the technology field or Silicon Valley, these are people in retail, in investments, in hospitality, education.. from all walks of life. Facebook (as an example) wants to become an identity service. They are selling themselves on their ability to authenticate identity. It is impossible to delete a facebook account, and attempting to do so will merely ensure that you are the only one without access to the collected data. I reiterate the point that "in the future" people will see $50/yr as a bargain for privacy and data control. My first thought when seeing App.net was "awesome idea.. 18-24 months too soon, especially at that price point."

blntechie 14y ago

The only reason I didn't sign up was that I felt that I'm paying for the cause and not the product. Not that I support the reason behind app.net but it just makes me hesitate. If it's simple as "pay for this great product", I might have. Good luck on meeting your funding goal!!

cmelbye 14y ago
You are paying for the product though... You're paying for an account and alpha access to the product.

citricsquid 14y ago

re: Kickstarter stats, when 59% is remaining and that remaining percentage is over $250,000 I don't think there are any Kickstarter projects that have ever come back from that position. Very few have ever had $500k targets...

pdog 14y ago

After August 13, how much can the business model of App.net change? Is it possible that a free-tier could be added that allows the average user to access and use the service without paying? Additional developer & other features would be available to those who pay for them. In determining a business model for App.net, it seems they've never addressed why there isn't a free tier.

catenate 14y ago
There is a free tier. Anyone can read the global feed.

bazookaBen 14y ago

@dalton you need to pimp up the alpha design. That counts too, if you want a larger audience.

SCdF 14y ago

I read HN every day. It is probably the site I read the most after Google reader. It is my go to for filling time between doing actual work and doing more actual work. I'd like to think I'm vaguely down with the Internet kids, but.. Wtf is App.net and why do I care? Am I supposed to know about this already? Is this supposed to be as common knowledge as twitter or facebook in my nomenclature? Dalton is sure as shit not going to tell you, and the site is far too awesome to waste its time telling you either. Reading the API docs (really, I have to read API docs to work out what this does?!) tells me it's a "real-time social service where users and developers come first, not advertisers.". Taking that knowledge on hand and looking at alpha.app.net, it looks like a twitter clone, but presumably one that you pay for. Aren't there free twitter clones already? Anyway, rant over, colour me confused. Idk... there are lots of projects people could be building, and there is every kind of possibility this has really useful stuff in it, but from the outside it just looks like another twitter clone.

notJim 14y ago
What? It says "App.net is a real-time social feed without the ads." right at the top of https://join.app.net https://join.app.net, and "Continue to join.app.net, our Kickstarter-like project to create a real-time social feed." right on app.net. How is he supposed to tell you what it is if you don't even go to the website?
- SCdF 14y ago
  I clicked the link in his blog post, which took me here: https://alpha.app.net/ https://alpha.app.net/. You're right though, 3 paragraphs into the blog there is a link to join.app.net.

catenate 14y ago

Can anyone yet point to something done with app.net that twitter won't or can't do? $50 is a lot to pay for something that so far acts just like twitter. Without those new and interesting apps, which right now do appear to be vaporware, it's not worth a premium over twitter. I don't think clients that just show you the feed or your feed count, because twitter can do that.

dasil003 14y ago
What app.net can do is offer you as a developer the credible promise that whatever you build on it will not be shut down because it conflicts with business decisions made 1, 5 or 10 years from now. This of course trickles down to the user, since you are virtually guaranteed that there will be new clients for as long as the service exists. With Twitter you are virtually guaranteed that no new client ideas will see the light of day unless they come from Twitter themselves, and those will all be designed to increase your usage of the service with any increased utility merely serving as the hook.
- catenate 14y ago
  I do understand this, and would like it to be true. But until at least one application actually exists that twitter won't or can't do, this is all promises, and those apps (which I hope aren't limited to user clients) are, in fact, vaporware. To a user, this $50 isn't today buying them anything they can't get from twitter, which is why app.net might not get funded.
  - dasil003 14y ago
    Well this has only been promoted for like 3 weeks, so give it a minute. There's a chicken or egg problem, if no one buys into the dream before it's reality then it will fail.
    - catenate 14y ago
      It doesn't take half a million dollars to come up with one single actual demoable application that does something twitter won't or can't do. The point of this thing is supposed to be better apps. Fine, show me one, and I'll pay $50 to see more.

streptomycin 14y ago

StatusNet is also not vaporware. Furthermore, it's also open source and federated rather than being yet another proprietary walled garden run by a corporation.

jmathai 14y ago
The thing with projects/apps/sites is that there's a threshold of time before it's considered passe. It's not logical and we in turn waste a lot of time and resources reinventing the wheel but that's the truth of the matter. I can't shake the feeling that this initiative suffers from the worst of both worlds. It's not entirely open AND it's a paid service.
- dasil003 14y ago
  Maybe you're right, but you could just as easily frame it as the best of both worlds: It's driven by the user's interests and it has the polish of a commercial product.
  - jmathai 14y ago
    That's the goal...I'm skeptical but hope they can prove me wrong.

SebMortelmans 14y ago

Dalton stated he will return all the money if he does not raise the full amount. Now why do I have the feeling that there is going to be a annex to that statement in a few days? He'll probably figure something out that allows him to (be allowed to) keep the money raised.

ceslami 14y ago
Your baseless pessimism is annoying at best. He is by no means a private figure -- a move like that would certainly destroy his reputation.

wamatt 14y ago

Do people really care about this? That might be the core problem. That said, I really respect Dalton for going all out on it.

arunoda 14y ago

Now I got it. This is a twitter clone. Give me 3 reasons to use app.net instead of Twitter? How do you different from Status.net & Yammer?

rdl 14y ago

I don't understand why a big company (or even a medium sized company) with no stake in the newsfeeds of Twitter or Facebook, or at least no interest in those being monopoly, doesn't fund this 100% just to reduce the power of Twitter and Facebook. $500k is not a huge amount of money if Twitter is disrupting your business (SMS carriers? Conventional blogging service? Print publication? Portal? Yahoo?)

mistercow 14y ago

>Additionally, if you take a look at Kickstarter’s official stats, it would appear that of 35,138 unsuccessful projects, only 2,026 of them ever reached 41% or more of their funding goal. In other words, only 5.7% of Kickstarter projects that don’t succeed ever manage to reach 40% of goal. Oh no. This is not how we Bayes. I don't have the mental energy to translate these natural language statements into statements of probability and actually apply Bayes' theorem, but I'm pretty sure if I did, the result would be a lot less inspiring of confidence than "only a 5.7% chance of failure!"

thedeuce 14y ago

app.net is a dumb name...NO THANKS; just because some no names are supporting it doesn't mean it's a great idea either.