3 ms·

Think APP.net's Just a Twitter Clone? Then, You're Missing the Point

12 points by teawithcarl 14y ago

by Mathew Ingram, GigaOm

rdudekul 14y ago
"It would a huge benefit to society if we can get with social networking to where we are with email today." If Twitter, Facebook and other Social networks are controlling their APIs, they may as well choose to create restrictions around App.Net accessing the APIs. So do you think App.Net will be successful in creating this open platform?
- MisterBastahrd 14y ago
  If you want something to get where email is today, you don't do it through an API. You do it through a standard protocol. We already have something that handles messages from all over the world. It's called Usenet.
  - rdudekul 14y ago
    Thanks for the clarification. I like many misunderstood the project scope.
tkahn6 14y ago
Can someone give an example of an application that would be built on top of App.net?
dsl 14y ago
I think a lot of people are "missing the point" because of the poor job Dalton is doing of describing what exactly he is trying to do. By the score of my comment [1] on the original announcement a lot of people agree. 1. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4241821 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4241821
jdonaldson 14y ago
They keep inviting comparisons to e-mail and instant messaging, and they keep insisting how app.net is not twitter. In many ways, all we know at this point is what app.net is not, and not what it is designed to do. The additional problem in all of this is that they're selling this service to developers, not users. Users are not going to care whether they use app.net, twitter, or whatever. Most are just wanting to see what Oprah or Shaq are going to say next. I see this project as more of an expression of collective frustration on behalf of anyone working in social media. I don't see it as a viable service.
natrius 14y ago
This is wishful thinking. App.net describes itself as essentially a third-party-developer-friendly Twitter with user-friendly privacy practices. From their FAQ: "OK, great, but what exactly is this product you will be delivering? As a member, you'll have a new social graph and real-time feed that you access from an App.net mobile application or website. At first, the user experience will be very similar to what Twitter was like before it turned into a media company. On a forward basis, we will focus on expanding our core experience by nurturing a powerful ecosystem based on 3rd-party developer built "apps". This is why we think the name "App.net" is appropriate for this service. From a developer perspective, you will be able to read and write to a Twitter-like API. Developers behaving in good faith will have free reign to build alternate UIs, new business models of their own, and whatever they can dream up." Notice how the only differences between their described product and Twitter are the two factors I mentioned above. Developers don't build Twitter-based products because they need a stream-as-a-service to build upon. They build them because there are users there. This is why I don't understand the App.net hype.
RossDM 14y ago
That's exactly what it is, a Twitter clone. The inspiration is clear from looking at the UI mockups and API. https://github.com/appdotnet/api-spec/blob/master/objects.md https://github.com/appdotnet/api-spec/blob/master/objects.md Maybe it will turn into something else someday, but not today.
amirmansour 14y ago
APP.net = ghost town social network with a fee.

12 points by teawithcarl 14y ago

by Mathew Ingram, GigaOm

"It would a huge benefit to society if we can get with social networking to where we are with email today." If Twitter, Facebook and other Social networks are controlling their APIs, they may as well choose to create restrictions around App.Net accessing the APIs. So do you think App.Net will be successful in creating this open platform?

MisterBastahrd 14y ago
If you want something to get where email is today, you don't do it through an API. You do it through a standard protocol. We already have something that handles messages from all over the world. It's called Usenet.
- rdudekul 14y ago
  Thanks for the clarification. I like many misunderstood the project scope.

tkahn6 14y ago

Can someone give an example of an application that would be built on top of App.net?

dsl 14y ago

I think a lot of people are "missing the point" because of the poor job Dalton is doing of describing what exactly he is trying to do. By the score of my comment [1] on the original announcement a lot of people agree. 1. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4241821 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4241821

jdonaldson 14y ago

They keep inviting comparisons to e-mail and instant messaging, and they keep insisting how app.net is not twitter. In many ways, all we know at this point is what app.net is not, and not what it is designed to do. The additional problem in all of this is that they're selling this service to developers, not users. Users are not going to care whether they use app.net, twitter, or whatever. Most are just wanting to see what Oprah or Shaq are going to say next. I see this project as more of an expression of collective frustration on behalf of anyone working in social media. I don't see it as a viable service.

natrius 14y ago

This is wishful thinking. App.net describes itself as essentially a third-party-developer-friendly Twitter with user-friendly privacy practices. From their FAQ: "OK, great, but what exactly is this product you will be delivering? As a member, you'll have a new social graph and real-time feed that you access from an App.net mobile application or website. At first, the user experience will be very similar to what Twitter was like before it turned into a media company. On a forward basis, we will focus on expanding our core experience by nurturing a powerful ecosystem based on 3rd-party developer built "apps". This is why we think the name "App.net" is appropriate for this service. From a developer perspective, you will be able to read and write to a Twitter-like API. Developers behaving in good faith will have free reign to build alternate UIs, new business models of their own, and whatever they can dream up." Notice how the only differences between their described product and Twitter are the two factors I mentioned above. Developers don't build Twitter-based products because they need a stream-as-a-service to build upon. They build them because there are users there. This is why I don't understand the App.net hype.

RossDM 14y ago

That's exactly what it is, a Twitter clone. The inspiration is clear from looking at the UI mockups and API. https://github.com/appdotnet/api-spec/blob/master/objects.md https://github.com/appdotnet/api-spec/blob/master/objects.md Maybe it will turn into something else someday, but not today.

amirmansour 14y ago

APP.net = ghost town social network with a fee.