3 ms·

It's not Twitter. I'm pretty sure you didn't finish reading Orian's article. Essentially, two ideas are happening simultaneously, which is why most people (in

It's not Twitter. I'm pretty sure you didn't finish reading Orian's article. Essentially, two ideas are happening simultaneously, which is why most people (including talented engineers) still think this is a Twitter clone. It's not at all. The client Dalton built to "display,the API engine" is indeed a Twitter-esque client. Well-built, and has features better than Twitter, such as no advertising, and a fascinating gaggle of talent posting, like early Quora. However, it's the APP.net "engine" that's actually the jewel. It's an open platform API that G+, FB, Twitter do NOT have. Think a DIY Anduino environment, but in software not hardware. Many 3rd party devs are stoked to build to this far richer, far deeper into the engine open API. as well, I'm struck by just how many earliest Twitter users (Twitter ID less than #9999) are in there. Finally, I sincere do believe this Silicon Valley street brawl is indeed (even though you pooh-pooh it) an idea which will define the modern era of computing. In the same way, Linux servers destroyed Windows servers in the early '90's, via a more open platform. Open platforms win.

thinkingisfun 14y ago
Open platforms are nice, but open standards are nicer. So yeah, open platforms win, for a while. But they're still more part of the problem than of the solution.
- teawithcarl 14y ago
  Twitter missed its chance to become just such an Imternet messaging protocol, on the order of email and HTML. APP.net is a collaboration to reverse Twitter's historical lack of backbone, choosing not to evolve into that world-class protocol. Remember, @al3x Payne (+many Twitter engineers lost that battle, and left). By the way, I agree with you below about Linus Torvalds and John Carmack not joining. I do understand and believe in where you're coming from.
  - thinkingisfun 14y ago
    But the thing is, a standardized protocol is open source, in that if you have the specs, you can implement it. Not just an API to a black box, but the whole workings of that box. So either I misunderstood a lot about app.net, or you misunderstood what I mean when I ramble about protocols. App.net depends on central hosting, does it not? It's not like I don't wish them luck, but unless they go the wordpress.com route -- with self-hosting/tinkering being optional -- I'm just not interested in "yet another walled garden", even if it has a genuinely well meaning gardeners, no hidden costs, no price hikes. So I'll be outside, using RSS feeds, thinking about microformats, pouting :D
    - drharris 14y ago
      ^ this. It's not a protocol, just an API, one hosted centrally by a business who is making a lot of promises. I'd like to give DC the benefit of the doubt, but let's face it; since when has a startup founder planned to stick with a company until the bitter end. What is to prevent, say, Yahoo from buying them out and locking down the API? Nothing. What's to prevent them from jacking up prices once they do get traction? Can you be absolutely sure that they won't block you (as a developer) if you build a competitive service on top of their API? What happens when they get investments from a company building "AppPic", and you're trying to build a different photo sharing service on it? I completely agree with open protocols and standards, and if we're trying to change the world, this is the way to do it. OpenID and OpenAuth solve a true pain point in people's lives, and look how long it's taken to get even a moderate amount of traction. But it's finally happening to some extent (even if it is with corporate players like FB/Google). If you want to change the world, this is the way to do it. Walled gardens, corporate promises, and hype are not going to do it.
drharris 14y ago
Linux servers have only "destroyed" Windows servers in... wait for it... Silicon Valley. Believe it or not, Windows still beats Linux on the worldwide server market 2 to 1, and demand is increasing. It doesn't surprise me at all that the early Twitter users are also early App.net users, because they're all in... wait for it... Silicon Valley. I read the article (and many others), and understand the platform and what it represents. It's not a difficult concept; I've had a few non-technical friends basically pitch the same business to me. I also understand what actual users want (because I'm not in... Silicon Valley). Users want free services, unless it reduces a pain point in their lives. Social networking produces (not reduces) a pain point in people's lives, so it had best be free or ad-based to get actual traction (again, SV users do not count as traction). Twitter was only a success because it captured the celebrity crowd, and I use the term "success" loosely. So, let's reduce the hype a bit. It's an API, just an API like any other, and it's being run by a business that claims they're going to keep it open (businesses always keep their promises). It might succeed, it might fail, who knows. But until it does either of those things, calling it the next platform of the web is a bit silly. "Ooh, but it's Dalton," you may say. Guess what: those of us not in SV do not care about SV celebrity. Neither does my grandma, or cousins, or coworkers, or anyone else that needs to be sold in order for this thing to work.

thinkingisfun 14y ago

Open platforms are nice, but open standards are nicer. So yeah, open platforms win, for a while. But they're still more part of the problem than of the solution.

teawithcarl 14y ago
Twitter missed its chance to become just such an Imternet messaging protocol, on the order of email and HTML. APP.net is a collaboration to reverse Twitter's historical lack of backbone, choosing not to evolve into that world-class protocol. Remember, @al3x Payne (+many Twitter engineers lost that battle, and left). By the way, I agree with you below about Linus Torvalds and John Carmack not joining. I do understand and believe in where you're coming from.
- thinkingisfun 14y ago
  But the thing is, a standardized protocol is open source, in that if you have the specs, you can implement it. Not just an API to a black box, but the whole workings of that box. So either I misunderstood a lot about app.net, or you misunderstood what I mean when I ramble about protocols. App.net depends on central hosting, does it not? It's not like I don't wish them luck, but unless they go the wordpress.com route -- with self-hosting/tinkering being optional -- I'm just not interested in "yet another walled garden", even if it has a genuinely well meaning gardeners, no hidden costs, no price hikes. So I'll be outside, using RSS feeds, thinking about microformats, pouting :D
  - drharris 14y ago
    ^ this. It's not a protocol, just an API, one hosted centrally by a business who is making a lot of promises. I'd like to give DC the benefit of the doubt, but let's face it; since when has a startup founder planned to stick with a company until the bitter end. What is to prevent, say, Yahoo from buying them out and locking down the API? Nothing. What's to prevent them from jacking up prices once they do get traction? Can you be absolutely sure that they won't block you (as a developer) if you build a competitive service on top of their API? What happens when they get investments from a company building "AppPic", and you're trying to build a different photo sharing service on it? I completely agree with open protocols and standards, and if we're trying to change the world, this is the way to do it. OpenID and OpenAuth solve a true pain point in people's lives, and look how long it's taken to get even a moderate amount of traction. But it's finally happening to some extent (even if it is with corporate players like FB/Google). If you want to change the world, this is the way to do it. Walled gardens, corporate promises, and hype are not going to do it.

drharris 14y ago

Linux servers have only "destroyed" Windows servers in... wait for it... Silicon Valley. Believe it or not, Windows still beats Linux on the worldwide server market 2 to 1, and demand is increasing. It doesn't surprise me at all that the early Twitter users are also early App.net users, because they're all in... wait for it... Silicon Valley. I read the article (and many others), and understand the platform and what it represents. It's not a difficult concept; I've had a few non-technical friends basically pitch the same business to me. I also understand what actual users want (because I'm not in... Silicon Valley). Users want free services, unless it reduces a pain point in their lives. Social networking produces (not reduces) a pain point in people's lives, so it had best be free or ad-based to get actual traction (again, SV users do not count as traction). Twitter was only a success because it captured the celebrity crowd, and I use the term "success" loosely. So, let's reduce the hype a bit. It's an API, just an API like any other, and it's being run by a business that claims they're going to keep it open (businesses always keep their promises). It might succeed, it might fail, who knows. But until it does either of those things, calling it the next platform of the web is a bit silly. "Ooh, but it's Dalton," you may say. Guess what: those of us not in SV do not care about SV celebrity. Neither does my grandma, or cousins, or coworkers, or anyone else that needs to be sold in order for this thing to work.