It's true that App.net won't have to compete against itself, but it will have to compete against Twitter, which is free and already has the momentum. The API d

It's true that App.net won't have to compete against itself, but it will have to compete against Twitter, which is free and already has the momentum. The API doesn't seem as massive as you think. From what I understand, it's just a read/write API to App.net. Users of these new apps that will be built on App.net will still need an App.net account to use them. App.net is going to be a service, not a protocol or platform. That's not to say that people can't build apps that use this API in interesting ways. Look at what bonfire.im has done on top of Twitter. I'm sure that lots of things can and will be built on App.net. But, at that point, the network just becomes another backend-as-a-service. Not only is that not groundbreaking, but it's going to serve it's purpose poorly, because the apps built on it are limited in scope to users who use App.net. If I wanted to build a service and were choosing a platform, why would I choose one that currently has 9,000 potential users in total?